Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Bill,

Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 30th April, and agreed to.

Iveagh Bequest (Kenwood) Bill [Lords],

Ordered,
That, in the case of the Iveagh Bequest (Kenwood) Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Ordered,
That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Tunbridge Wells Corporation Bill [Lords],

Ordered,
That, in the case of the Tunbridge Wells Corporation Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Ordered,
That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Moans.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Bill,

As amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Dysart Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,

London and North Eastern Railway Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered read the Third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.

Address for Return
of all the Draft Provisional Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which in the Session of 1928–29 have been reported on by the Commissioners; together with the names of the Commissioners; the first and also the last-day of the sittings of each group; the number of days on which each body of Commissioners sat; the number of days on which each Commissioner has served; the number of days occupied by each Draft Provisional Order before Commissioners; the Draft Provisional Orders the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; and the Draft Provisional Orders the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved:
And also a Statement showing how all Draft Provisional Orders of the Session of 1928–29 have been dealt with."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

SECONDARY SCHOOLS.

Return ordered,
showing the 235 secondary schools not provided by local education authorities which continue to receive direct grant from the Board of Education, together with a percentage of free-place admissions required under Article 15 in each of them."—[Sir C. Trevelyan.]

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP (BRITISH INDIANS).

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his Department has made any representations to the American Government having as its object legislation in America for the purpose of giving Indians the right to hold land already in their possession in America, in view of the recent decision in the courts of the United States of America depriving Indians of American citizenship?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): While His Majesty's Government have accorded the most careful consideration to the position of British Indians affected by the United States Supreme Court decision of 1923, which laid down that they were ineligible for United States citizenship and that in these circumstances those that had acquired naturalisation had done so ultra vires, there are no grounds, treaty or otherwise, upon which such representations could usefully be made. Action was, however, taken in 1923 with a view to giving Indian landowners affected by the decision time to dispose of their property.

Mr. DAY: How much time was given to them; and is it the case that many of them have still land there of which they have been unable to dispose?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not know exactly what time they were given, but we were able to obtain a promise from the United States Government that consideration would be given to them and that reasonable time would be allowed for them to dispose of these properties.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the fact that India has no control over foreign policy is sufficient reason why the Foreign Office should stand up for the rights of Indians in matters of this kind, just as they would for the rights of any other British subjects? Why should they be forced to sell their land?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have just pointed out that we did our utmost to
defend their interests and we got them this promise from the United States Government.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Is it the policy of the Government to differentiate between British citizens in India and British citizens in Great Britain?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There has been no differentiation whatever by His Majesty's Government. This was a case of a legal decision given by the United State Supreme Court.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

PEMBROKE DOCK (AIR STATION).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 2.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now make any statement regarding the use of Pembroke Dockyard by the air or naval forces of the Crown?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): It has now been definitely decided that the Air Ministry shall take over Pembroke Dockyard as an Air Station. The development of this as of any other air base must of course be a gradual process, but I understand that the Air Ministry are proceeding with the preliminary arrangements.

Captain GARRO-JONES: While this announcement may give some satisfaction to the inhabitants of this town, will the First Lord, in order to avoid any disappointment, make a plain statement as to the extent to which employment is to be provided?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir. That is a matter for the Air Ministry, and not for my Department. As I have said, and as my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said before, it will take some little time to develop the air base. They are beginning now, and any other questions regarding the rapidity of the progress of the work must be addressed to the Secretary of State for Air and not to me.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Are any further steps contemplated by the Government to discharge their duty to the inhabitants of this town? May I have an answer to that question?

ROSYTH DOCKYARD (NAVAL RATINGS).

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 3.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that 25 naval ratings have been transferred from Chatham to the Rosyth Dockyard to take over work done by local ex-dockyard men and labourers, many of whom are drawing parish relief and have been unemployed for several years; and if this displacement of civilians from employment by members of His Majesty's forces is in accordance with the Government's scheme?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The statement in the first part of the question is without foundation, and the second part does not therefore arise.

APPRENTICE ENGINEER ARTIFICERS.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 4.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what arrangements have been made regarding the additional jerseys added to the recreational clothing of apprentice engineer artificers; and whether any money deducted from wages through the canteens has been returned, seeing the additional clothing was not according to the requirements as set out in the appendix to the Navy List?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Arrangements are being made to relieve apprentices entered in future of the expense of providing these jerseys by a readjustment of kits to include necessary recreational clothing. I am not satisfied that any case has been made out for a refund of money.

Mr. YOUNG: Was the order that these jerseys were to be worn for recreation purposes made without any authority in the regulations?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There may have been some irregularity in this, but the saving to the apprentices out of kit upkeep allowance in having these jerseys to wear when playing games instead of their ordinary clothes, will fully make up for any extra expense to which they may be put.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

STATISTICS (LONDON AREA).

Captain FRASER: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour what was the number of insured
persons in the London area in the calendar year 1924 and in the calendar year 1928; the number and percentage of insured persons recorded as unemployed in the London area in 1924 and 1928; does the Camden Town Exchange more or less accurately coincide with the area of the Borough of St. Pancras; and, if so, what was the number and percentage of insured persons recorded as unemployed at this Exchange in 1924 and in 1928?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): It is estimated that at July, 1924, there were 1,956,000 insured persons aged 16 to 64 in the London area, as compared with 2,147,000 at July, 1928. During the calendar year 1924 the average number of insured persons recorded as unemployed in the same area was 179,920, or 8.9 per cent., as compared with 118,081, or 5.6 per cent. in 1928. A recent analysis has shown that the number of persons on the registers of the Camden Town Employment Exchange approximates very closely to the number of persons unemployed who are resident in the Borough of St. Pancras. In 1924 there was an average of 5,131 insured persons recorded as unemployed at the Camden Town Exchange, or 10 per cent. of the estimated numbers insured, as compared with 2,827, or 5.2 per cent., in 1928.

Captain FRASER: Can my hon. Friend say whether, in considering the comparisons which arise out of these figures, any allowance should be made for the number of men who might have come off the register as a result of the Government's action?

Mr. BETTERTON: It is probable that in London about 2,000 persons came off as a result of the powers of the Minister which were exercised in 1925, but that is more than offset by the larger number which came on in consequence of the provisions of the Act of 1927.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it possible for the hon. Gentleman to discriminate between the increase or decrease of productive workers and distributive workers in the area referred to in the question?

Mr. BETTERTON: I certainly could not give any estimates without notice,
but if the hon. Gentleman will put the question down, I will do my best to give him an answer.

Mr. HANNON: Do not these figures now indicate that we have practically returned to the normal condition of employment in the London area?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

MINERS.

Mr. BATEY: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of miners unemployed in each mining district on 31st March, 1924, and on 31st March, 1929, respectively?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

NUMBERS OF INSURED PERSONS classified as belonging to the Coal Mining Industry in Great Britain recorded as unemployed at 24th March, 1924, and at 25th March, 1929.


District.
Numbers unemployed at


24th March, 1924.
25th March, 1929.


Wholly Unemployed.
Temporarily stopped.
Total.


Northumberland
…
1,078
6,937
160
7,097


Durham
…
4,403
24,184
3,324
27,508


Cumberland and Westmorland
…
410
2,451
320
2,771


Yorkshire
…
2,300
15,496
1,068
16,564


Lancs. and Cheshire
…
2,980
9,121
2,573
11,694


Derbyshire
…
531
2,577
520
3,097


Notts. and Leicester
…
315
2,881
287
3,168


Warwick
…
193
952
20
972


Staffs., Worcester and Salop
…
2,822
6,270
479
6,749


Gloucester and Somerset
…
813
1,301
85
1,386


Kent
…
142
132
153
285


Wales and Monmouth
…
5,701
44,160
3,264
47,424


England and Waies
…
21,993
117,238
12,261
129,499


Scotland
…
4,410
17,538
497
18,035


Great Britain
…
26,403
134,776
12,758
147,534

Mr. BATEY: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of miners unemployed in the County of Durham on 31st March, 1924, and on 31st March, 1929, respectively?

Mr. BETTERTON: At 25th March, 1929, the number of insured persons aged

Mr. LAWSON: Will the hon. Gentleman give us the figures for 1924 for the whole of Great Britain?

Mr. BETTERTON: Certainly. In 1924 in Great Britain the figure was 26,403 and in 1929 it was 147,534.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in a number of collieries the managements have been flooding the mines with new men during the last few weeks, making it quite impossible for any of the men to earn a reasonable wage; and has that any connection with the General Election?

Mr. BETTERTON: In regard to the first part of the supplementary question, if the hon. Member means that there has been any breach of the agreement that new men should not go into the collieries, I should be very much obliged, if he would give me particulars of it.

Following is the statement:

16 to 64, classified as belonging to the coalmining industry recorded as unemployed in the County of Durham was 27,508, as compared with 4,403 aged 16 and over at 24th March, 1924.

Mr. LAWSON: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how it is that yesterday we had
a statement by the Ministry of Health that 16,000 men who had been occupied in industry and were now unemployed were receiving relief because they were getting no benefit? Is there any explanation of the large number of men who are unemployed, but who are getting no benefit?

Mr. BETTERTON: That is entirely a different question, and I am afraid, as I did not hear the statement to which the hon. Member refers, I cannot make any comment on it.

Mr. BATEY: Seeing there is such a huge increase in the number of unemployed miners between 1924 and 1929, are the Government proposing to do anything to find work for these men?

Mr. BETTERTON: That, of course, is entirely a different question, and it does not in any way arise out of the question on the Paper.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are the 16,000 unemployed miners who are not receiving unemployment benefit included in the 27,508?

Mr. BETTERTON: I should require notice of that question. That is the figure, I suppose, mentioned by the other hon. Member, and I should like notice of it, in order that I might see exactly what it is, so as to be able to give a definite answer to it.

TRANSFER OF WORKERS.

Mr. THURTLE: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have been transferred to the Borough of Shoreditch under the transference scheme; and the number of positions that have been found for those persons?

Mr. BETTERTON: Up to 22nd April, 1929, 31 men had been transferred from depressed areas into employment in the area of the Shoreditch Employment Exchange under the Industrial Transference Scheme. Transfers under this scheme only take place when there is employment in view for the individuals concerned.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are thousands of men in Shoreditch who could have taken on the jobs which have been filled by these men?

Mr. BETTERTON: I cannot think that the addition of 31 men has really brought about the result which the hon. Member fears. There are in Shoreditch 84,070 insured persons, and the transferees, therefore, amount to 1/28th of 1 per cent. of the insured persons.

Mr. THURTLE: Is it not thoroughly uneconomic to bring men hundreds of miles to fill jobs when there are men on the spot for those jobs?

Mr. BATEY: Are we entitled to put a question?

Mr. SPEAKER: Not one like the last.

Mr. BATEY: I was going to ask if the hon. Gentleman can say how many of these 31 transferred miners are still in Shoreditch?

Mr. BETTERTON: I cannot say without notice.

Mr. PALING: Is it any satisfaction to a man, when he has been transferred and finds there is a job for him, to find that he is such a small proportion of the whole?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am sure, on the other hand, it must be a great satisfaction to a man transferred from an area where there is no work to find himself in an area where there is work.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of workers transferred from distressed areas in Scotland since the beginning of October last to the parish of Wemyss, Fifeshire, the cost of transference, and the number of transferees who, since being brought into the parish of Wemyss, have been in receipt of Poor Law relief or relief from the Miners' Distress Fund; and the monthly number of local unemployed on the registers during the period mentioned?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT

Following is the reply:

Separate figures showing the number of workers transferred from depressed areas in Scotland to the parish of
Wemyss are not available, but between 6th October, 1928, and 22nd April, 1929, seven men were transferred from depressed areas to the district served by the Employment Exchange at Leven.

Statistics are not available regarding the cost of these transfers nor with regard to the number of cases, if any such occurred, in which the men transferred have been in receipt of Poor Law relief, or relief from the Miners' Distress Fund. The numbers of persons on the registers of the Leven Employment Exchange on certain dates in the period October, 1928, to April, 1929, were as follows:


Date.
Number.


1st October, 1928
1,054


5th November, 1928
1,058


3rd December, 1928
1,106


7th January, 1929
1,222


4th February, 1929
1,145


4th March, 1929
1,181


8th April, 1929
946


29th April, 1929
829

Mr. CHARLETON: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in many cases men transferred under the transference scheme have obtained employment for a week or two only; and what is the policy of the Department with respect to such cases when the man is under agreement to repay by weekly instalments the amount advanced for his travelling expenses?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have no evidence that any considerable number of men moved under the industrial transference scheme whose first engagement has come to an end have not found or been given an opportunity of other employment, or that pressure amounting to hardship is brought to bear upon them to repay advances of travelling expenses.

Mr. CHARLETON: Will the hon. Gentleman give consideration to the point that there are a number of oases of men only employed for a week or two, and who come from long distances and cannot possibly get the money together?

Mr. BETTERTON: This money, of course, is not a grant but a loan; at the same time, if the hon. Gentleman has cases of hardship which he thinks ought to be looked into, I will see that this is done.

Mr. CHARLETON: We should prefer the Minister looking into the question of laying down some new rule with the object of saying that a man should be at least employed for some length of time before he is asked to refund, and that he should be given a free warrant should he be employed for only a week or two, but should he be employed for a long term—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving information.

WAGES (COLLIERIES).

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to state the result of his investigation into the case of the 16 unemployed men who were recently offered work by the Wemyss Coal Company, Fifeshire, through the agency of the Leven Employment Exchange; if he has received confirmation of the report that the men in question were offered payment for loading small coal into wagons at rates varying from 3d. to 6d. per ton; that the men, having discontinued work when they found it impossible to earn a living wage at the rates offered, have been disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit and are now, with their dependants, in receipt of Poor Law relief; and what action is to be taken to restore the men's qualification for benefit?

Mr. BETTERTON: This case has been referred to the umpire. I will comunicate with the hon. Member when his decision has been received.

Mr. KENNEDY: Is it the practice of the Ministry of Labour to inquire into the conditions of labour, wages, and so on that are to be offered to men who are supplied to employers through the Employment Exchanges?

Mr. BETTERTON: I do not see how that arises out of the question, but the answer is that it is certainly not the practice of the Ministry of Labour to transfer men to other areas where the result would be that they would undercut the standard rate in the district.

Mr. KENNEDY: This is not a matter of transference. It is a matter of the supply of local labour for a local colliery, and I ask if it is the practice of the Employment Exchanges to inquire whether the wages to be offered to men so supplied
are the standard wages, and whether, in the event of the wages offered being unsatisfactory, the men are to be qualified for the receipt of unemployment benefit if they do not accept the work?

Mr. BETTERTON: The last part of the question is, of course, not a matter for me at all, but is a matter for the statutory authority, the court of referees and the umpire. With regard to the general question which the hon. Member put first, it is not the policy of the Ministry of Labour to transfer men to other areas and ask them to undertake work at a rate less than the trade union rate.

Mr. KENNEDY: Does not the hon. Member realise that this disallowance of benefit means that the men were at least six weeks wholly without benefit and that they are now chargeable to the local parish council, involving a burden on the ratepayers of at least £25 a week? Is not that a matter of principle which should be subjected to examination?

Mr. BETTERTON: That is the question which the hon. Member put before, and it is a matter for the court of referees and the umpire in each case whether the men should or should not get benefit, in view of all the circumstances of the case.

Mr. DAY: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Charles Whitcombe, of Aberbargoed, a colliers' helper, who was recently offered employment with the Highley Mining Company, of Kidderminster, at a salary of 18s. 4d. per week from the colliery company, plus a grant of 6s. to 7s. a week from the Lord Mayor's miners' relief fund, and to the case of John Roberts, of Aberbargoed, who was offered employment with the Highley Mining Company, of Kidderminster, at terms of 19s. a week, plus a grant of 6s. to 7s. a week from the Lord Mayor's miners' relief fund, both these positions having been offered through the machinery of the Ministry of Labour; whether, as these men were required to travel over 150 miles from their home to secure work, any offer was made to pay their travelling expenses to the work and for their return to their homes when they had completed their engagement; can he say whether applications have been made by his Department to the committee of the
Lord Mayor's relief fund for miners for the purpose of subsidising the wages of any colliery workers; and, if so, can he state the amount that has been allocated for this purpose and give full particulars?

Mr. BETTERTON: A number of youths have been successfully transferred from the mining area in South Wales to employment with the Highley Mining Company, Kidderminster, and I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 25th March by the President of the Board of Education to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards). The wages offered are the standard rates for this occupation in Highley and, in addition, the mining company pay a further amount in respect of each youth to enable the vacancy to qualify for a grant in aid of maintenance from the Lord Mayor's Fund. A free travelling warrant to the place of employment is also given. In view of these general arrangements I have not thought it necessary to obtain a report with regard to the specific cases mentioned in the question, but I should point out that the rates of wages there quoted are those for boys of 16 or 17 years of age.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether a return warrant is given to these boys, and will he also answer that part of my question in which I have asked specifically whether his Department has at any time made any request to the Lord Mayor's Fund for these boys, so that their wages can be subsidised?

Mr. BETTERTON: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, the answer is in the negative. With regard to the second part, an arrangement has been made by which, in order to enable these boys to live in the areas to which they are transferred, they are to receive a sum from the Lord Mayor's Fund, but it is provisional upon the employers also paying 25 per cent. of the difference between the rate of the district and the cost of maintenance.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that a sum of £45,000 has been asked for from the Lord Mayor's Fund, and that these boys are offered a wage of only 18s. 4d. and have to live away from home?

Mr. BETTERTON: With regard to the first part of that question, it has been agreed between the Trustees of the Lord Mayor's Fund and the Ministry of Labour that a sum of £45,350 shall be set apart for assisting the transfer of juveniles from the depressed areas in order to enable them to find employment elsewhere.

Mr. SHINWELL: Does this mean that the employers would be unable to get the necessary labour but for the fact that wages are subsidised from the Fund?

Mr. BETTERTON: It is not a subsidy of wages at all. There are two conditions, and one of them is that the employer shall contribute not less than 25 per cent. of the difference between the rate in the district and the cost of maintenance; and, of course, the boy, having to live away from home, is put to expenses to which he would not otherwise be put.

INCIDENCE (GREAT BRITAIN AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any information which will enable a comparison to be made of the incidence of unemployment in this country, in the United States of America, in Germany, and in France; if so, what the figures are for each of these countries; and what indication, if any, he can give of the main reasons for any considerable differences?

Mr. BETTERTON: The latest statistics relating to unemployment in this country, Germany and France are published regularly in the monthly issues of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette." I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the current issue, in which the available figures are given on page 147. No statistics of unemployment are officially compiled for the United States of America. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Reports of the Committee on Industry and Trade (particularly their "Survey of Overseas Markets" and their "Final Report"), and to the Reports issued by the Department of Overseas Trade on "Economic and Financial Conditions in Germany to June, 1928," and on "Economic Conditions in France in 1928."

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. FENBY: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour how many men and women, respectively, have ceased to be insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Act on becoming eligible to receive old age pensions under the provisions of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925?

Mr. BETTERTON: Under the provisions of Section 37 of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, which came into operation on 2nd January, 1928, all persons aged 65 or over ceased to be insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, whether entitled to an old age pension or not. It was estimated that at 2nd January, 1928, there were 319,000 men and 23,000 women who thus ceased to be insurable.

Mr. SHINWELL: Does that mean that more than 300,000 persons ought ordinarily to be included in the unemployment figure, but are not included because they are eligible for old age pensions?

Mr. BETTERTON: No; that is a complete misconception. Out of this number it is estimated that there are perhaps 30,000 unemployed, but to arrive at the value or accuracy of the figures returned every week, that is more than offset by an arrangement which has recently been made under which persons not entitled to benefit attend the Employment Exchanges to have their health cards stamped, who formerly were not included in the figures at all.

Mr. HARDIE: Does the figure of 30,000 represent those who had, say, 20s. or 236. a week unemployment benefit but who have been transferred under the Old Age Pensions Act and have become receivers of 10s. a week?

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).

Mr. POTTS: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons aged 16 to 64 gainfully occupied in England and Wales for the years 1921, 1924 and 1928, specifying males and females under separate heads?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving such information as is available.

Following is the statement:—

The only statistics available relate to the number of persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts exclusive of persons insured under the Special Scheme for the Insurance industry. The following table gives the estimated numbers of such persons, aged 16 to 64 in England and Wales at July of each of the years 1921, 1924 and 1928.


Date.
Males.
Females.
Total.


July, 1921
6,693,000
2,667,000
9, 360,000


July, 1924
7,149,400
2,578,000
9,727,400


July, 1928
7,500,700
2,777,300
10,278,000

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR CARS (PARKING REGULATIONS).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 16.
asked the Minister of Transport the results of his conference with the Home Office regarding the parking regulation which prohibits the locking of the doors of motor cars when parked?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I still have this matter under consideration in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that three months is quite long enough to consider such a point, particularly as, when he made his first announcement on the subject, he was sitting next to the Home Secretary and is doing it again now?

Colonel ASHLEY: I hope that that is to our mutual benefit. I have held up a decision for this reason. I have in the last two or three days made revised draft regulations in connection with parking stations, with the object of increasing their number very substantally in the traffic area. A proviso is put in those regulations that cars must be left so that they can be moved by hand. The object of that is that representations can be made to me in the next 35 days objecting to that proviso, so that I should be informed more exactly what the objections are and be in a position to come to a decision.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose.

Mr. SPEAKER: None of these supplementary questions arise out this question.

Mr. CRAWFURD: On a point of Order, may I ask if a supplementary question which has not yet been put can be ruled out as not arising out of the question?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is for me to say when there have been enough supplementary questions.

TRADESMEN'S VEHICLES (OBSTRUCTION).

Mr. MARCH: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long a tradesman can leave his vehicle outside his shop in a market street for loading or unloading, or doing neither, before contravening the regulations of the Metropolitan Police?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): The time for which such a vehicle may be left standing is, under Section 54 (6) of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, limited to the time necessary for loading or unloading. This clearly must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case.

Mr. MARCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this vehicle stands outside this shop in this street for three or four hours at a stretch, being an inconvenience and a nuisance to other tradespeople, and when the police are approached they say they have no power to interfere?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member's question says nothing about "this vehicle" or "this street," and I have not the slightest idea to what vehicle or to what street he is referring.

Mr. MARCH: You may depend it is a vehicle in connection with the gentleman's trade, and you may depend it is a market street, as I have mentioned, and there is not much difficulty in finding out in Poplar the market street and the vehicle.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (STATISTICS).

Mr. BATEY: 17.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of miners employed and the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents
in the coal industry for the years 1924, 1925, 1927 and 198, respectively?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): As the reply involves

Year.
Mines under the Coal Mines Act, 1911.


Number of persons employed.
Number of persons killed.
Number of persons disabled for more than three days.


1924
…
…
…
…
…
1,230,248
1,201
195,423


1925
…
…
…
…
…
1,117,828
1,136
178,060


1927
…
…
…
…
…
1,037,391
1,128
173,449


1928
…
…
…
…
…
951,632
989
161,790

Mr. LAWSON: 18.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of workers employed in the mining industry at the end of August, 1928, and the number employed at present?

Commodore KING: The number of wage-earners on colliery books on 31st August, 1928, was 894,200, and the corresponding number at the present time is 940,800.

Oral Answers to Questions — NOMINATION DAY (TELEGRAPHIC FACILITIES).

Mr. CRAWFURD: 21.
asked the Postmaster-General what arrangements are being made for the transmission of telegrams from county towns on Nomination Day, 20th May, in view of the fact that this is a Bank Holiday and normal telegraphic facilities will not be available?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): To meet the requirements of the Ballot Act, 1872, special attendance will be given at telegraph offices in Parliamentary county divisions so far as may be necessary for the transmission and reception of official telegrams relating to the nomination of candidates.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Will this accommodation involve a special charge, or will the ordinary accommodation be available, for instance, to the Press, at the ordinary telegraphic charges?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, Sir; it is merely the accommodation to meet the requirements of the Ballot Act, 1872.

Mr. CRAWFURD: It does not include accommodation for the Press?

volves a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The figures are as follow:

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, Sir.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that what is required on Nomination Day are not telegrams but cash?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

PIMLICO CLOTHING FACTORY (HOLIDAYS).

Mr. KELLY: 22.
asked the Secretary of Stats for War the number of employés in the cutting room at the Pimlico Clothing Factory who receive an annual holiday with pay; and why all those engaged in the cutting room are not given holidays with pay equal to the rest of the Civil Service?

Mr. PENNY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The only employé of the cutting room eligible for annual leave with pay is the foreman cutter. The remainder of the employés fall into the general group of War Department industrial employés who, as indicated in the reply given to the hon. Member on 7th March, do not receive annual leave with pay in addition to the regulated public holidays.

TYPISTS (ESTABLISHMENT).

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 31.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will take steps to ensure that long-service typists and shorthand-typists in the employ of His Majesty's Government shall not be substituted by new entrants from the examinations but established after seven years' service or more?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I am not prepared to accept the suggestion that unestablished typists and shorthand-typists should be admitted to establishment after seven or any other number of years' service, except through the normal channel, namely, success at the examinations held by the Civil Service Commissioners. But so far as can be foreseen at present there is no reason to apprehend the displacement of any efficient temporary typist or shorthand-typist by a successful candidate from the examinations.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Is the hon. Gentleman not prepared to agree that seven years' experience in an apprenticeship is the equivalent of passing an examination?

Mr. SAMUEL: Unestablished typists can enter the examination for typists without any limit of age, and the examination for shorthand writers up to the age of 40.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the hon. Gentleman look up the history of Rachel?

P-CLASS CLERKS.

Mr. BRIANT: 32.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if arrangements have been made for additional and progressive pay for the P-class of ex-service civil servants?

Mr. SAMUEL: An agreement has now been concluded in this matter between His Majesty's Government and the representatives of the staffs concerned.

Mr. BRIANT: So far as the hon. Member is able to give any assurance on this matter, if a Royal Commission is appointed on the Civil Service, as is suggested, will he see that this particular class of civil servants are not debarred from further consideration under that Royal Commission?

Mr. SAMUEL: I could not give an answer offhand to that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TRADE EXHIBITIONS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 25.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department
what assistance has been given by his Department during the past 12 months to British exhibitors at overseas trade exhibitions; and what preparation is being made for next year's British Industries Fair?

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING (Secretary Overseas Trade Department): During the past 12 months my Department has given assistance to British firms by notifying them of such forthcoming exhibitions, to be held overseas, as are of interest to them, and by supplying any information which firms require concerning such exhibitions. Our specific efforts are too numerous to explain at Question Time, and with my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In reply to the second part of the question, the usual preparations are being made for next year's British Industries Fair which, my hon. Friend will be aware, is to be held at Olympia, where extensive alterations and improvements are being pressed forward in order to ensure their completion by the date of the Fair.

Following is the statement:

At the Milan International Samples Fair held from 12th–27th April, my Department staged a small national propaganda exhibit in the permanent British pavilion which has been used for similar purposes for the past four years. At the Canadian National Exhibition held at Toronto from 24th August till 8th September my Department organised on behalf of the Empire Marketing Board a comprehensive exhibit of Empire foodstuffs and raw materials, the Federation of British Industries being responsible for the exhibits of individual British manufacturers in the same building. This exhibit, I am happy to state, proved very successful and received a hearty welcome from the Canadian press. In the International Aeronautical Exhibition, held in Berlin from 7th to 28th October last year, my Department assisted the Royal Aeronautical Society to organise the British exhibit, and also loaned exhibits. My Department has assisted the limited company organising British participation in this year's international exhibition at Barcelona, and the President of the Board of Trade accepted the position of President of the Committee of Honour appointed for the
British section. The only forthcoming overseas exhibition in which His Majesty's Government is pledged to official participation is the International Maritime and Colonial Exhibition to be held at Antwerp next year, and my Department is at present taking the necessary steps to get into touch with prospective British exhibitors with a view to rendering them all proper assistance. My Department has also undertaken to assist in the organisation of a British Trade Exhibition at Buenos Aires, and is represented on the committee which has just been set up in London for that purpose. The exhibition is being promoted by the British Chamber of Commerce in the Argentine Republic, and will open at the end of 1930 for about three months.

NORTH-EAST COAST EXHIBITION (AFRICAN VILLAGE).

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 26.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has received any protests from the African Students' Union in London concerning the erection of an alleged African village at the North-East Coast Exhibition of Industry to be held in Newcastle, which, in their opinion, is calculated to bring the Negro population into contempt and/or ridicule; and will he take the necessary steps to see that no feature of the exhibition is such as to give legitimate cause for this complaint?

Mr. HACKING: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has received protests in connection with the proposal to erect an African village at the North-East Coast Exhibition, which it is intended to people with natives from Northern Africa, who are now on their way to England. I am informed that the natives will live in huts specially built for them on similar lines to those constructed at Wembley, and will carry on native handicrafts. From the information I have received, there would seem to be nothing in the proposed arrangements which should bring the natives into contempt or ridicule.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Does the hon. Member maintain that making an exhibition of this kind will help British industries in any way? Does he not realise that, though it may not be repugnant to the exhibition authorities here, or to the British visitors, it is very repugnant
to the educated section of Africans, and does he not further realise that we are only making an exhibition of the wretched way in which citizens are reared up and kept in the British Empire?

Mr. HACKING: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. March.

SILK EXPORTS (DRAWBACKS AND REBATES).

Mr. CRAWFURD: 29.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of applications, and the amount claimed, received by His Majesty's Commissioners of Customs during the year 1928 for drawbacks and rebates on the export of silk; and can he state the number allowed and the average time required for the investigation of such claims?

Mr. SAMUEL: The records available do not distinguish between drawback claims in respect of silk goods and drawback claims in respect of artificial silk goods. The total number of claims paid in respect of both silk and artificial silk goods during the year 1928 was 455,797, and the net amount of drawback paid was £2,055,660. There is no separate record of the number of claims lodged during the year, but it would approximate to the number of claims paid. The time required for the investigation of claims varies in accordance with the circumstances of each case and no average can be given.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Is the hon. Member aware that one business house in London alone has had to make 30,000 applications this year in respect of articles made in this country and to employ a special staff of several people to deal with them?

Oral Answers to Questions — BUCKINGHAM LICENSING JUSTICES (HOME SECRETARY'S LETTER).

Mr. CRAWFURD: 28.
asked the Home Secretary the grounds on which he wrote recently to the brewster sessions at Buckingham calling upon the licensing justices to show more activity in the quashing of public house licences?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member must have been misinformed. I have not made such a communication as he describes to licensing justices either
recently or at any time. I did address a communication—not of the nature described—to the Compensation Authority in November, 1927, and I am sending a copy to the hon. Member.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a statement published in the official organ of the trade on 13th April this year in which it is stated that such a communication was sent, as a result of which the justices, to use their own phrase, "Had a look round and pitched on a particular public house," in order to quash a licence and comply with the right hon. Gentleman's letter? I only ask the question in order to inquire if that is the right way in which this judicial function should be exercised?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. I have not seen the paper in question. It is not one of my usual magazines, or things that I read. If the hon. Member will send it to me, I will see whether there is anything in it which needs attention.

Major COLFOX: Are we to understand from the hon. Member's question that on the subject of temperance as on other subjects he has broken away from his party?

Mr. CRAWFURD: On a point of personal explanation, may I put one supplementary question in order to counteract the effect of the previous supplementary question? If I am in order in doing so, I would only ask if it is not within the right of any Member of this House to draw the attention of the appropriate Minister, in all courtesy, to what he regards as an infringement of the exercise of judicial capacity by any person in this country?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not complained of the hon. Member. If he will let me have the paper, I will consider the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — FILMS (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT RECEIPTS).

Mr. DAY: 30.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the amount of profits made by Government Departments for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date on any
films that have been made with the assistance of Government Departments; whether there are any films being made at the present time with the assistance of any of the Government Departments; and will he give full particulars?

Mr. SAMUEL: Receipts by Government Departments in respect of films made with their assistance amounted to approximately £4,620 in the financial year 1928. The Empire Marketing Board have in preparation two films illustrating certain aspects of Empire marketing; no other films, so far as I have been able to ascertain, are being made at the present time with the assistance of any Government Department.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Department set up at the Stationery Office for the purpose of supervising these contracts is still in existence?

Mr. SAMUEL: That is a different question. If the hon. Member will put it down, I will do my best to give him a reply.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Do these profits include any sums in respect of the services of Cabinet Ministers as film actors?

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's premise.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (RAILWAYS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many miles of railway have been constructed in the British East African Dependencies during the past four-and-a-half years; and how much of this construction has been financed by grants or loans from the Imperial Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The total length of Government railway lines in the British Dependencies in East Africa constructed and opened to traffic since 1st January, 1925, is approximately 700 miles. The greater part of that section of the Tabora-Mwanza Railway which extends from Tabora to Shinyanga (122 miles) was built from a loan made to the Tanganyika Government by the Imperial Exchequer. Certain lines in Kenya and
Uganda were initiated under the Parliamentary Loan of 1924, since paid off by the Government of Kenya. The remainder of the railway construction in question has been carried out from loans raised by the Government of the Tanganyika Territory under the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act, 1926, and by the Government of Kenya on the open market. Another 260 miles are still under construction, mostly under that Act.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May we take it that there will be considerable developments of this activity during the next few years?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I sincerely hope so.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the hon. Member say to what extent the value of the land adjoining this railway has been enhanced as a result of this enterprise?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I should very much doubt whether there has been any alteration in the value of the land. It is in the hands of native peasants, and there are no European enterprises of any kind, and I suggest that no sale of land in that area is at all likely.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Will the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. SPEAKER: Both the supplementary question and the answer are quite out of order. They have nothing to do with the question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN REPARATIONS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD (by Private Notice): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any information from the Reparations Commission to give the House; and why the Commission is making recommendations as to the Spa percentages?

Mr. SAMUEL: If the right hon. Gentleman will repeat his question to-morrow my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider in the meantime whether he will be in a position to make a statement on the matter.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask why, in the absence of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, this matter is not being dealt with by the Treasury; whether the Committee is not sitting in Paris at the present moment; whether the terms of reference read out in this House for this Committee did not include within the powers of the Committee any dealings with the Spa percentages; and whether our representatives on that Committee are without information and without instructions at this very critical moment?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had better wait for the Minister's reply.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. We cannot wait. If we wait until to-morrow this country may be committed to another gift to the French people by the Government? Why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer not in his place to deal with these questions? May I press the Financial Secretary for an answer?

Mr. SAMUEL: The answer is quite simple. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's question did not reach the Treasury until a few minutes after one o'clock to-day, and it was physically impossible to provide the answer in the time available.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: How can it be impossible when the matter is being discussed now in Paris?

BILL PRESENTED.

PROVISION FOR DISPLACED TEACHERS BILL,

"to make provision for teachers who are displaced in consequence of school reorganisation undertaken by local education authorities," presented by Mr. Briant; supported by Mr. Harris, Major Hills, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, Sir Robert Newman, and Miss Wilkinson; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 119.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Report of Select Committee brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,

That they have agreed to—

St. John's Hospital (Winchester) and other Charities Scheme Confirmation Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Merthyr Tydfil Water Charges) Bill,
Dumfries and Maxwelltown Burghs Amalgamation Order Confirmation Bill,
Kirkcaldy Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
Smethwick Corporation Bill, with an Amendment.
Chester Corporation Bill,
Metropolitan Railway Bill, with Amendments.

Amendment to—

Beaumont Thomas Estate Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Aire and Calder Navigation Bill [Lords],
Birmingham Corporation (Rivers Improvement) Bill [Lords],
Chatham and District Traction Bill [Lords],
Cheltenham District Traction Bill [Lords],
Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],
Gosport and Fareham Omnibus Services Bill [Lords],
Halifax Corporation Bill [Lords],
Haslingden Corporation Bill [Lords],
Jarrow and South Shields Traction Bill [Lords],
Kingston-upon-Hull Extension Bill [Lords],
Mansfield District Traction Bill [Lords],
Mexborough and Swinton Traction Bill [Lords],
Mount Vernon Hospital Bill [Lords],
Newport (Salop) Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Oldbury Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Preston Corporation Bill [Lords],
South Lancashire Tramways Company (Trolley Vehicles, etc) Bill [Lords],
Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Epsom District Gas Bill [Lords],
Warrington Corporation Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[13TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

REPORT [7TH MAY.]

Resolutions reported:

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1929.

CLASS VIII.

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £32,723,500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Pensions, and for sundry Contributions in respect of the Administration of the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916, the War Pensions Acts, 1915 to 1921, and sundry Services."

CLASS V.

2. "That a sum not exceeding £2,169,518, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Health for Scotland, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local authorities, etc., in connection with Public Health Services, Grant in Aid of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service, Grants in Aid of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and certain Special Services."

CLASS VI.

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £374,047, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, including Grants for Agricultural Education and Training, Loans to Co-operative Societies, and certain Grants in Aid."

CLASS IV.

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,423,485, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for Public Education in Scotland, and for the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, including a Grant in Aid."

CLASS VI.

5. "That a sum, not exceeding £43,845, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the
sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland, including Expenses of Marine Superintendence, and Grant in Aid of Piers or Quays."

CLASS I.

6. "That a sum, not exceeding £26,373, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."

7. "That a sum, not exceeding £228,186, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the House of Commons."

8. "That a sum, not exceeding £160,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Expenses under the Representation of the People Acts, 1918 to 1928."

9. "That a sum, not exceeding £191,253, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments."

10. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,852, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council."

11. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,620, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal."

12. "That a sum, not exceeding £27,744, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Charity Commission for England and Wales."

13. "That a sum, not exceeding £18,975, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission."

14. "That a sum, not exceeding £95,650, be granted to His Majesty, to complete
the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor General."

15. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,976, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for making good the Deficiency on the Income Account of the Fund for Friendly Societies."

16. "That a sum, not exceeding £23,287, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Government Actuary."

17. "That a sum, not exceeding £45,165, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Government Chemist."

18. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for a Grant in Aid of the Government Hospitality Fund."

19. "That a sum, not exceeding £35,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of Coinage, and the Expenses of the preparation of Medals, Dies for Postage and other Stamps, and His Majesty's Seals."

20. "That a sum, not exceeding £9,091, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Debt Office."

21. "That a sum, not exceeding £55,923, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Savings Committee."

22. "That a sum, not exceeding £24,436, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Public Record Office, and of the Office of Land Revenue Records and Inrolments."

23. "That a sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to His Majesty, to complete
the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Establishment under the Public Works Loan Commissioners."

24. "That a sum, not exceeding £62,216, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, to make the payment due to the Local Loans Fund in respect of Advances in Northern Ireland, and to make good certain sums written off from the Assets of the Local Loans Fund."

25. "That a sum, not exceeding £23,720, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and other Expenses of Royal Commissions, Committees, and Special Inquiries, etc., including provision for Shorthand, and the Expenses of Surplus Stores, etc., Liquidation."

26. "That a sum, not exceeding £42,891, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses, including certain Grants-in-Aid and Bonus on certain Statutory Salaries."

27. "That a sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for His Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."

28. "That a sum, not exceeding £131,767, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Scottish Office and Subordinate Offices, Expenses under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, Expenses under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, a Subsidy for Transport Services to the Western Highlands and Islands, and Payments in respect of Unemployment Schemes."

29. "That a sum, not exceeding £28,623, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, to repay to the Civil Contingencies Fund certain Miscellaneous Advances."

CLASS II.

30. "That a sum, not exceeding £122,120, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire."

31. "That a sum, not exceeding £502,330, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions, and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other Expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote, Relief of Refugees from the Near East, certain special Grants, including a Grant-in-Aid, and Sundry Services arising out of the War."

32. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £82,687, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions, and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other Expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote, Relief of Refugees from the Near East, certain special Grants, including a Grant-in-Aid, and Sundry Services arising out of the War."

33. "That a sum, not exceeding £45,600, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for a Contribution towards the Expenses of the League of Nations and for other Expenses in connection therewith, including British Representation before the Permanent Court of International Justice and for a Grant-in-Aid of the expenses of the Opium Inquiry Commission."

34. "That a sum, not exceeding £40,473, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs."

35. "That a sum, not exceeding £66,170, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for sundry Dominion Services, including certain Grants-in-Aid, for certain ex-gratia Grants, and for expenditure in connection with Ex-Service Men in the Irish Free State."

36. "That a sum, not exceeding £450,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Empire Marketing Fund."

37. "That a sum, not exceeding £855,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Expenses connected with Oversea Settlement, including certain Grants-in-Aid, and Expenses arising out of the Empire Settlement Act, 1922."

38. "That a sum, not exceeding £555,697, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Non-effective Services and Grants-in-Aid."

39. "That a sum not exceeding £73,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for a Contribution towards the cost of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India in Council, including a Grant-in-Aid."

40. "That a sum, not exceeding £412,672, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for certain Salaries and Expenses of the Imperial War Graves Commission, including Purchase of Land in the United Kingdom, and a Grant-in-Aid of the Imperial War Graves Commission Fund, formed under Royal Charter, 21st May, 1917, and a Contribution towards an Endowment Fund."

CLASS III.

41. "That a sum, not exceeding £285,783, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices, including Liquidation Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Contributions towards the Expenses of Probation."

42. "That a sum, not exceeding £47,080, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Expenses of the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum."

43. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,622,860, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, Bonus to Metropolitan Police Magistrates, the Contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, an ex-gratia Grant to the Clerk to the Stipendiary Magistrate for Chatham and Sheerness, the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary, and other Grants in respect of Police Expenditure, including Places of Detention, and a Grant-in-Aid of the Police Federation."

44. "That a sum, not exceeding £475,250, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Expenses of the Prisons in England and Wales."

45. "That a sum, not exceeding £110,567, he granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Grants in respect of the Maintenance of Juvenile Offenders in Reformatory and Industrial Schools, and in Auxiliary Homes in England and Wales, and whilst under supervision; also for the payment of Salaries and other Expenses in connection with the Collection of Parental Contributions towards the maintenance of such Children."

46. "That a sum, not exceeding £90, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature and Court of Criminal Appeal as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund, including Bonus on certain Statutory Salaries and a Grant in Aid, and the Salaries and Expenses of Pensions Appeals Tribunals."

47. "That a sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses connected with the County Courts, including Bonus to County Court Judges."

48. "That a sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Land Registry."

49. "That a sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Trustee."

50. "That a sum, not exceeding £108,568, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries of the Law Officers' Department; the Salaries and Expenses of the Departments of His Majesty's Procurator-General, and of the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Costs of Prosecutions, of other Legal Proceedings, and of Parliamentary Agency."

51. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,653, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which
will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for certain Miscellaneous Legal Expenses, for the Salaries and Expenses of Arbitrators, etc., under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, and for a Grant in Aid of the Expenses of the Law Society."

52. "That a sum, not exceeding £466,443, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspector of Constabulary, for Grants in respect of Police Expenditure, and for a Grant in Aid of the Police Federation in Scotland."

53. "That a sum, not exceeding £75,566 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Prisons Department for Scotland, and of the Prisons under their control, including the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics, Defectives, and Inmates of the State Inebriate Reformatory, the Preparation of Judicial Statistics, and a Grant for certain Expenses connected with Discharged Prisoners."

54. "That a sum, not exceeding £42,880, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Expense of the Maintenance of Juvenile Offenders in Reformatory, Industrial, and Day Industrial Schools, and in Auxiliary Homes in Scotland, including the Expenses of Collection of Parental Contributions."

55. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,730, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Scottish Land Court, including Bonus to Members of the Court."

56. "That a sum, not exceeding £44,600, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930 for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other Law Charges, the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice and of Pensions Appeals Tribunals in Scotland, and Bonus on certain Statutory Salaries."

57. "That a sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices in His Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh."

58. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,025, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which
will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the cost of certain Northern Ireland Services, including Expenditure in connection with Ex-Service Officers and Men in Northern Ireland, and Bonus on certain statutory Salaries."

59. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,102, he granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930 for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland, and of the Land Registry of Northern Ireland, as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund, and other Expenses."

60. "That a sum, not exceeding £847,471, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Land Purchase Commission, Northern Ireland including the payment of Land Purchase Annuities in Northern Ireland, and the Expenses of certain Land Purchase Services in the Irish Free State reserved as an Imperial liability."

CLASS IV.

61. "That a sum, not exceeding £26,649,899, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."

62. "That a sum, not exceeding £163,559, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and other Expenses of the British Museum, and of the Natural History Museum, including certain Grants-in-Aid."

63. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,545, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Imperial War Museum."

64. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,302, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses in respect of the London Museum, Lancaster House."

65. "That a sum, not exceeding £16,625, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery, and of the National Gallery of British Art, Millbank, including a Grant-in-Aid for the purchase of Pictures."

66. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,403, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Portrait Gallery, including a Grant-in-Aid for the purchase of Portraits."

67. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,537, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Wallace Collection."

68. "That a sum, not exceeding £133,278, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for sundry Grants-in-Aid of Scientific Investigation, etc., and other Grants."

69. "That a sum, not exceeding £886,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Grants-in-Aid of the Expenses of certain Universities, Colleges, Medical Schools, etc., in Great Britain, and for Grants to Schools under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889."

70. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,728, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery, the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, and the Museum of Antiquities, including certain Grants-in-Aid."

71. "That a sum, not exceeding £455, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Library, including a Grant-in-Aid."

CLASS V.

72. "That a sum, not exceeding £421,927, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Control (Lunacy and Mental Deficiency), England, and Grants, in respect of the Maintenance of certain Ex-Service Mental Patients."

73. "That a sum, not exceeding £59,748, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar General of Births, etc."

74. "That a sum, not exceeding £112,610, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Audit Staff under the National Health Insurance Acts, 1924 to 1928."

75. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,290,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in England and Wales, in respect of Capital Works approved as Unemployment Schemes, and for Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in Great Britain for assistance in carrying out Approved Schemes of useful Work financed otherwise than by way of loan to relieve Unemployment."

76. "That a sum, not exceeding £30,373, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Registry of Friendly Societies."

77. "That a sum, not exceeding £20,537,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the payment of Old Age Pensions, for certain Administrative Expenses in connection therewith, and for Pensions under the Blind Persons Act, 1920."

78. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the sum payable to the Treasury Pensions Account in accordance with the provision of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925."

79. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,559,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Exchequer Contribution to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Associations, Local Education Authorities, and others under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges, and other Acts; Expenses of the Industrial Court; Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of Training and Transference of Workpeople and their Families within Great Britain and Oversea; and sundry services, including services arising out of the War."

80. "That a sum, not exceeding £55,229, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the General Board of Control for Scotland, and Grants in respect of the Maintenance of certain Ex-Service Mental Patients."

81. "That a sum, not exceeding £10,707, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar-General of Births etc., in Scotland.

CLASS VI.

82. "That a sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Trade, under the Bankruptcy Acts, 1914 and 1926, and the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1926."

83. "That a sum, not exceeding £244,728, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of certain services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund, and other services connected with the Mercantile Marine, including the Coastguard, General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen, Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, and Grants to the General Lighthouse Fund and other Lighthouse Authorities."

84. "That a sum, not exceeding £248,783, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Overseas Trade, including Grants-in-Aid of the Imperial Institute and the Travel Association of Great Britain."

85. "That a sum, not exceeding £48,240, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Guarantees in respect of Exports of Goods wholly or partly produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Export Credits Department."

86. "That a sum, not exceeding £111,205, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade."

87. "That a sum, not exceeding £20,090, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which
will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands, including Bonus to Commissioner and Secretary."

88. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,900,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for a Subsidy on Sugar and Molasses manufactured from Beet grown in Great Britain."

89. "That a sum, not exceeding £77,980, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Expenses of the Survey of Great Britain, and of minor services connected therewith."

90. "That a sum, not exceeding £300,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Forestry Fund."

91. "That a sum, not exceeding £57,060, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Transport, under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, Expenses of the Railway Rates Tribunal under the Railways Act, 1921, Expenses under the London Traffic Act, 1924, Expenses in respect of Advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896, Expenses of maintaining Holyhead Harbour, Advances to meet Deficit in Ramsgate Harbour Fund, Advances to Caledonian and Crinan Canals, and for Expenditure in connection with the Severn Barrage Investigation."

92. "That a sum, not exceeding £180,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Development Fund."

93. "That a sum, not exceeding £286,214, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, including the Geological Survey of Great Britain and Museum of Practical Geology, and a Grant-in-Aid."

94. "That a sum, not exceeding £90, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the State Management Districts, including the Salaries of the Central Office, and the Cost of Acquisition and Management of Licensed Premises."

CLASS VII.

95. "That a sum, not exceeding £50, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Expenditure in respect of Housing Estates under the Management of the Office of Works."

96. "That a sum, not exceeding £71,600, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Expenditure in respect of Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, including the whole additional cost of a new Sheriff Court House at Edinburgh."

97. "That a sum, not exceeding £10,830, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Expenditure in respect of Osborne."

98. "That a sum, not exceeding £412,220, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."

99. "That a sum, not exceeding £854,890, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Expenditure in respect of Sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain not provided for on other Votes, including Historic Buildings, Ancient Monuments, and Brompton Cemetery."

100. "That a sum, not exceeding £55,260, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a Grant-in-Aid."

101. "That a sum, not exceeding £707,610, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, certain Post Offices abroad, and for certain Expenses in connection with Boats and Launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department."

102. "That a sum, not exceeding £139,070, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."

103. "That a sum, not exceeding £988,460, be granted to His Majesty, to
complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Property in the occupation of the Crown for the Public Service, and for Rates on Buildings occupied by Representatives of British Dominions and of Foreign Powers, and to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and a Grant-in-Aid of the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade."

104. "That a sum not exceeding £758,842, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates."

105. "That a sum, not exceeding £21,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for constructing a new Harbour of Refuge at Peterhead."

106. "That a sum, not exceeding £65,680, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Expenditure in respect of Public Works and Buildings in Ireland."

CLASS VIII.

107. "That a sum, not exceeding £230,989, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for War Pensions and Allowances (including cost of Treatment) to Merchant Seamen and Fishermen and their Dependants, and the Administrative Expenses connected therewith."

108. "That a sum, not exceeding £176,120, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Expenses of Pensions, Compensation Allowances and Gratuities awarded to retired and disbanded members and staff of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and to widows and children of such members, including annuities to the National Debt Commissioners in respect of commutation of Compensation Allowances and certain extra-Statutory Payments."

109. "That a sum, not exceeding £866,033, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate and Additional Allowances and Gratuities under sundry Statutes, Compassionate
Allowances, Gratuities, and Supplementary Pensions awarded by the Treasury, and under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, by the Civil Service Committee."

CLASS IX.

110. "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Clearing Office for Enemy Debts (including Enemy Property Department), Shipping Liquidation, and certain other Services arising out of the War."

111. "That a sum, not exceeding £381,050, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Expenditure arising out of Contracts dated 9th April, 1918, and 3rd March, 1922, entered into with the Zinc Producers' Association Proprietary, Limited, to give effect to agreements made in 1916 and 1917 for the purchase of Zinc Concentrates."

112. "That a sum, not exceeding £90, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, to meet Expenditure arising from the Government Control of Railways in Great Britain and Ireland under the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, Section 16."

113. "That a sum, not exceeding £125,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Lord Mayor's Fund."

114. "That a sum, not exceeding £17,228, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for a Grant-in-Aid of Relief in Distressed Mining Areas in Scotland."

CLASS X.

115. "That a sum, not exceeding £12,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for a Grant-in-Aid to Rating Authorities in England and Wales in respect of LOSS of Rates during the period from the 1st day of October, 1929 to the 31st day of March, 1930, in consequence of reduction of Rateable Values of certain hereditaments as from the 1st day of October, 1929."

116. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for a Grant-in-Aid to Rating Authorities in Scotland in respect of Loss of Rates during the period from the 1st day of October, 1929 to the 15th day of May, 1930, in consequence of reduc
tion of Rateable Values of certain hereditaments as from the 1st day of October, 1920."

117. "That a sum, not exceeding £633,333, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Railway Freight Rebates (Anticipation) Fund."

118. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the payment of Grants in respect of Local Rates on certain Private Mineral Railways."

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1929.

119. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,208,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Customs and Excise Department."

120. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,910,425, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inland Revenue Department."

121. "That a sum, not exceeding £33,110,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1929.

122. "That a sum, not exceeding £420,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Medical Services, including the cost of Medical Establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

123. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,300,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the Fleet Air Arm, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

124. "That a sum, not exceeding £232,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Educational Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

125. "That a sum, not exceeding £470,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Scientific Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

126 "That a sum, not exceeding £392,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Fleet Reserve, and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

127. Section 1. "That a sum, not exceeding £6,770,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

128. Section 2. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,021,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Materiel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

129. Section 3. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,228,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Contract Work for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

130. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,544,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Armaments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

131. "That a sum, not exceeding £721,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of various Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

132. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,187,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

133. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,068,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

134. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,527,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

135. "That a sum, not exceeding £957,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1929.

136. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,432,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Army Reserve, Supplementary Reserve, Territorial Army, Officers Training Corps, and Colonial Militia, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

137. "That a sum, not exceeding £986,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Medical Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

138. "That a sum, not exceeding £895,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Educational Establishments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

139. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,415,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Quartering and Movements, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

140. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,007,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

141. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,175,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Clothing, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

142. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,513,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of General Stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

143. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,538,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Warlike Stores, including Technical Establishments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

144. "That a sum, not exceeding £881,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

145. "That a sum, not exceeding £861,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the War Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

AIR ESTIMATES, 1929.

146. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,676,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

147. "That a sum, not exceeding £306,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Medical Services of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

148. "That a sum, not exceeding £498,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Educational Services of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

149. "That a sum, not exceeding £556,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Auxiliary and Reserve Forces of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

150. "That a sum, not exceeding £228,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

151. "That a sum, not exceeding £661,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Air Ministry, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

152. "That a sum, not exceeding £217,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Rewards, Half-Pay, Retired Pay, Widows' Pensions, and other Non-Effective Services of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES), 1929.

153. "That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Expense of the Ordnance Factories, the Cost of the Productions of which will be charged to the Army, Navy, Air Force, etc."

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I am glad to have another opportunity of presenting the Estimates for my Department, because it enables me to give the House what is most important in regard to War pensions, a comprehensive view of the system under which we work. The Vote of the Ministry is still nearly the largest single Vote of all the Civil Estimates. The Ministry's work affects the weekly budget of nearly 1,000,000 families, and the actual beneficiaries of the Ministry number 1,500,000—a larger
number than has ever been reached under any pensions system in this country. Yet Members of this House nowadays come across no more than occasional cases here and there—cases of complaint it may be. Although these few cases are less than one in 1,000 of the pensioners in their constituency, and although they hear nothing of the other 999, Members are apt, especially if, as is natural, they sympathise with the one-sided statement of the case they get, to question the whole system because they do not know it as a whole.
After a brief survey, therefore, of the financial arrangements of the current year, I propose to review the chief features of the pensions system and to trace the way in which they have been worked out in recent years. The Vote of the Ministry for the current year amounts to £53,723,500. At the end of the current year we shall have spent, since the beginning of the War—that is to say in the past 15 years—no less than £913,000,000 on War pensions. I have taken pains to ascertain how our expenditure compares with that of other countries, who, along with us, were the most heavily engaged in the Great War, and I find that by comparison with our £913,000,000, France will have spent not more than about £500,000,000, and Germany but little more than about £400,000,000. Our expenditure on War pensions has therefore been roughly equal to the expenditure of both France and Germany together. This fact is one that, I think, the country may be proud of, and the reason for it is not less creditable. The reason is that our scales of pension are considerably better than those of France and Germany. Take, for example, a disabled man with a 50 per cent. pension—a figure that is round about the average pension rate. Under the British pension system he draws £52 a year for himself—and a 50 per cent. pension will be never less than £52. In France the same man would draw, not £52, but £23 a year, including a variable bonus. In Germany he would draw £18 a year, including a bonus.
The fact is that when, after the War, the cost of living rose with us and with other European countries, we were prompt to adjust our scales of pension to meet the enhanced prices so that, at any rate, whoever suffered, the pensioner
should not. Other countries did not take this course, and the pensioner suffered; and it is only since those countries have given up the policy of inflation of prices and have attained a stable currency that they have begun to adjust the scales of pension to the altered cost of living In strict financial theory we should have been bringing our pension rates down as those other countries were just beginning to increase theirs, because our cost of living has gone down steadily since 1919, but the Government decided that pensioners should not suffer a reduction of the scale of pension to which they had become accustomed for years and, as I was able to announce to the House ten months ago, they decided to stabilise the existing scales of pension.
The estimated expenditure of £53,000,000 represents a decrease of nearly £3,500,000 on the Estimate of the preceding year. This is at the present stage—I wish to emphasise that it is only at the present stage—a normal decrease. It will not last because the principal factors of that decrease are gradually ceasing to operate. The expenditure will, in fact, very shortly show no more than a fall of little more than 2 per cent. a year, and I estimate that over the next ten years the mean of our expenditure will be about £45,000,000 a year. But, taking the course of expenditure for the last five years, including the year in which the party opposite were in office, there has been an annual decrease in the expenditure amounting on an average to round about £3,000,000. Indeed, the actual (not the estimated) expenditure of last year showed exactly the same decrease namely about £2,750,000 as occurred in my predecessor's year of office.
The factors which are bringing about this decrease at the present time are much the same as were bringing it about five years ago and have been operating since. The decreased expenditure is the result of a decline in practically every item of the bill—administration, medical services, pensions and allowances. The administrative machinery of pensions will cost this year £1,231,000. There is still a decline, I am glad to say, in this item of our expenditure. Though naturally enough it is tending to stabilize, there will still be the substantial decrease of 6½ per cent. on the
previous year's figure. We are still spending on administration no more than 5½d. to every £ of expenditure on benefits to pensioners, as compared with 1s. 3d. in 1920, the first year of my association with the Ministry. I think on a declining expenditure that is a point which the House of Commons will probably regard as being satisfactory.
The staff shows a decline in numbers corresponding with the diminution in the volume of work. At the 31st March last, the staff numbered 6,608, a decrease of 800 on the previous year. Roughly, one-third of the staff consists of female staff, of whom a large number are employed as nurses in Ministry hospitals, in addition to those engaged on clerical duties or as typists. 4,100 of the staff are men, of whom 96 per cent. are ex-service men. The decline of the work means inevitably that a certain number of the staff become from time to time redundant, but we make every endeavour to secure alternative employment for those who have to leave us. Apart from vacancies created by death, resignation or retirement on pension or other form of compensation, the majority of the men who left the Ministry were transferred to other Government Departments.
In pensions and allowances, which account for 94 per cent. of the Ministry's expenditure, we shall spend this year £50,798,000 for a pension list of roughly 950,000 adult pensioners and their dependants. Of this total of £50,798,000, rather more than one-half, or, to be precise, £27,300,000, goes in pensions and cash benefits of all kinds to disabled officers and men; and £23,400,000 to the widows and dependants of those officers and men who have lost their lives in consequence of their War service.
The aggregate expenditure on pensions shows a decline, as it must needs do at this date, 10½ years after the end of the War. Death is taking its toll of the dependants and parents of the men who have died in consequence of their War service, as it is also, though to a much less extent, of the disabled officers and men.
Remarriage of widows is another factor contributing to the decline of expenditure, though it is, naturally enough, diminishing rapidly in importance. But
the single factor which has contributed most to the decline of expenditure is the reduction in the number of children for whom the allowances given by the Ministry are still drawn by their parents. Some 70,000 children will be reaching the age of 16 this year and will be passing off the list, with a consequent reduction of nearly £1,500,000 of expenditure. There are, of course, still factors on the other side of the account, operating in the direction of increased expenditure. We are admitting to pension, even now, anything between 50 and 60 new claims a week, chiefly from widows and dependants of pensioners. But, on the whole, the net result is a declining expenditure, and it has been declining steadily and regularly for the last five or six years.
I now turn to the item of Medical Services. There are two sides of the Medical Service attached to the Ministry. There is, first, the medical examination for pension purposes, and, next, there is the work of medical and surgical treatment. The medical examination, or boarding, of pensioners for the assessment of their pensions, is rapidly diminishing. The bulk of the work is now directed to the making of final settlements or final awards in all suitable cases. I am continually pressed to settle pensions finally, both by the men themselves, at meetings to which I go in the country, and by Members of this House. The security which these final awards bring is being appreciated, as we knew it would be. There are only about 100,000 cases still drawing pensions that are temporary and subject to further review. I am glad to say that our present lines of working are calculated to complete, in a few months' time, practically, the medical boarding of all these cases, so far as they are likely to be found suitable, for final award. For many of the men it will probably be found impossible, and unfair in their own interests, to give final awards, at any rate yet, if at all, because they are cases that are actively deteriorating, and in such cases we naturally do not wish to give final awards. But for the bulk of cases I hope that finality may be reached before the present year runs out.
The other side of the Ministry's medical work consists of the medical and surgical treatment of cases. The demand for treatment of all kinds continues to show
the same decline year by year as has occurred for the last seven or eight years, and the hospital accommodation of the Ministry has, of course, been reduced proportionately. The Ministry is still maintaining 17 hospitals of its own with approximately 3,000 beds, and has a call on 25 other hospitals under the control of voluntary bodies which reserve their entire accommodation, or the bulk of it, for the Ministry. These provide accommodation for a further 2,000 cases. In addition, the Ministry makes use of civil hospitals to a substantial extent. The number of patients in the Ministry and civil hospitals on the 31st March was 5,106.
I cannot conclude my review of the current year's work of the Ministry without reference to that large and most important section of it which is comprised in the voluntary work of the Special Grants Committee and the War Pensions Committees. The expenditure of these bodies is relatively very small, but their importance in maintaining a human relationship between the Ministry and its clients cannot be over-estimated. With regard, first, to the 160 War Pension Committees, each of these Committees has the duty of acting as a local court of appeal to which any pensioner or claimant can state his or her case, if he or she has any complaint to make against the handling of the case or claim by the Ministry. The Committee investigates each case and puts it to the Ministry, and gets a reasoned answer explaining the case, or the case is put right if it has substance. A War Pensions Committee has many other duties, but the most important is to supervise the orphan children of former pensioners and those who were killed on service. They have some 13,000 children under their supervision in this way, and they are also the channel through which claims are put to the Special Grants Committee for assistance towards the education of other children whose parents are pensioners.
In all this work the committees are assisted by the voluntary workers in all districts, who, even now, number some 17,000 throughout the country. They are in constant touch with individual cases, and represent them to the committees or to the Ministry. They, and organisations associated with them, often organise entertainments for the children, or for the men still in hospital. The House will,
I am sure, agree with me that pensioners and the country at large owe a profound debt of gratitude for the very effective and kindly work, official and unofficial, that is performed by the voluntary workers of the Ministry.
With regard to the Special Grants Committee, this committee was set up by Statute 12 years ago, primarily with the object of mitigating, especially in the earlier years after the conclusion of the War, the consequences of disablement or death where the State pension was, in the special circumstances of an individual case, not altogether adequate compensation. In this sphere its work has inevitably, with the passing of the 10 years since the War, diminished, and one portion of it, namely, the provision of supplementary assistance to meet the educational expenses of young children, now overshadows the rest. Many thousands of children have, in the course of these years, been assisted by grants from the committee, and, although the number of cases is diminishing as children grow older and pass beyond the range of secondary education, there are at the present moment over 7,000 children receiving assistance towards their education through the instrumentality of the committee.
The educational side of the Special Grants Committee's work has been, since the committee was reorganised three years ago, in the hands, I am glad to say, of ladies and gentlemen of outstanding educational experience and qualifications, and it has been my policy to obtain their advice and assistance on all the points at which the Ministry's work touches the education and welfare of children. My predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. F. O. Roberts) set aside a portion of certain voluntary funds at the disposal of the Minister of Pensions, with the object of providing further supplementary assistance towards the training and apprenticeship of children, and I have been able, I am glad to say, to extend the provision made by him with satisfactory results. I am sure the House will be glad to know that this work is going on well. During the past year over 1,000 children have been given special assistance for all kinds of objects which may all be summarised under the general heading of assistance towards self-sup
port and a start in life. I have only recently sent out a Circular to War Pensions Committees which I hope will enable the Minister to go still further in the same direction.
It will not be inappropriate in this connection if I refer to the work of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. Of the assistance he has given me in that capacity I can only speak with the utmost gratitude, and I am confident that all Members of this House who have experienced his unfailing readiness to listen and inquire into the cases they brought to him will feel as I do. But, in addition to this, my right hon. and gallant Friend has acted for the last three years as Chairman of the Special Grants Committee, and none of its members has been more active than he has in the detailed current work of the Committee. Not content with the work of the Committee at headquarters, he made it his business to get into touch with War Pensions Committees throughout the country; he convened meetings of the Chairmen of the Children's Sub-Committees of the local War Pensions Committees, and spent many hours in discussing with them their difficulties and putting them right to the utmost extent possible. His work in this connection has been of incalculable advantage to the Ministry and to the ex-service men.
While I am speaking of individuals, perhaps the House will allow me also to express the gratitude I owe to the assistance of the Parliamentary Private Secretaries, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir K. Murchison), and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Banbury (Major Edmondson). They have given ready help to Members of all parties in this House who have brought cases to them. They have helped me, and I am well assured that they have helped ex-service men. I am glad also to have this opportunity of expressing my indebtedness to the staff of the Ministry. I have been associated with them for a long time. I have reason to be grateful to them for their constant help and support, and I have reason to appreciate the ability with which they carry out their difficult work for the ex-service men and for the nation.
After this short review of the current year's administration, I ask leave of the House to survey briefly the main problems of Pensions administration which has been pursued in past years, and particularly to the three important developments of the last few years: the seven years limit, final awards and stabilisation. Both the law and the policy of War Pensions have been built up by Ministers of each political party in turn. The fundamental principles of working have been maintained by each party, with only such adjustments of procedure as circumstances have shown from time to time to be necessary. It has been my fortune to be connected with that administration in a responsible position for the greater part of the last nine years which have seen the Ministry's work both at its height and in its gradual but inevitable decline. During those years the Ministry has proceeded in accordance with rules approved by the successive Governments in power. You cannot work any pensions system without definite rules. But there are two ways of drawing them. You may draw them so widely that in the end you find yourself admitting a host of cases which have little or no claim, or you can draw your rules so tightly that you leave out many genuine eases because of their failure to comply with technical requirements. Successive Governments and Ministers of Pensions in this country have adopted the wiser line of having definite rules, so framed as to give just compensation, but at the same time of retaining a measure of elasticity for exceptional cases.
As my predecessor, the right hon. Member for West Bromwich, wisely said the great majority of cases were covered by existing Regulations and Acts of Parliament or Warrants in existence, but outside those cases was a smaller percentage of very difficult cases, and it was almost impossible to frame a Regulation that was going to cover these exceptional cases. I agree with him, and I have taken every possible step to ascertain that the pension system is working justly and adequately. I have discussed our principles of working, as well as individual cases of difficulty, with the Chairmen of War Pension Committees in every part of the country, including Scotland, of course. I meet representatives of the British Legion centrally at the Ministry
and often locally also; I am in daily communication with Members of this House on pension cases. I am glad to say that I have abundant testimony to the fact that the system, as a whole, is working soundly. There are, as there must be, occasional cases of difficulty, cases in regard to which I and my advisers are unable to see eye to eye with those who have heard no more than one side of a case—but these cases are few in number, and very few indeed by comparison with the enormous body of pensioners which have been satisfied.
I will deal now with three important problems about which there has been development in the last three years. I refer to final awards, the time limit, and the stabilisation of pension scales. The seven years time limit is a remarkable example of the unanimity of the three political parties when in office on the subject of War pensions. It was imposed on medical advice in 1921 under a Liberal Prime Minister and a Liberal Minister of Pensions. It received the unanimous approval of this House in the 1921 Act. It was upheld by the Government of Mr. Bonar Law. The Labour party had promised to remove it, but when in office, very rightly, they not only proposed no change to this House, but maintained it in individual cases which were already arising in 1924. The principle was again carefully considered by the present Government, who decided that it should be maintained. In imposing a time limit we have done in fact what every other country has done which enrolled its men in the late War by universal service on British lines. Every country has imposed restrictions of one land or another on the meeting of claims for disablement by War service as a right for an indefinite period. At the same time we have done what every other country has done in applying this limit. We have qualified the rigid time limit by a procedure for the admission of exceptional cases which can prove that they are genuine cases of War disablement. This qualification has been the work of the present Government. We introduced a system under which exceptional cases can and do go through beyond the seven years limit. There are occasionally cases where for some good reason an ex-service man has not applied for pension within the seven years. At the present time any
ex-service officer or man in such a case, who can produce evidence to show that he is seriously incapacitated by a disablement genuinely traceable to his War service, can and does get compensation under the administrative arrangements which I have been enabled to make. The Government made these arrangements more than three years ago, and I cannot make it too clear that these arrangements are working, and, I think, satisfactorily.
Naturally enough, at the present time, considering how widely we advertised the time limit and how complete has been our local organisation, with its Local Offices and War Pensions Committees, which virtually invited men to claim, and considering the huge number of claims we have dealt with, about 2,000,000 claims altogether—considering all these facts, the number of exceptional cases of genuine War disablement arising after the time limit is naturally enough small. They are mostly cases of wounds, and for these I have made special arrangements by which they receive examination and, if necessary, hospital treatment at once by application to the Area Office. Between 300 and 400 cases that have arisen beyond the seven years' time limit have, in fact, been pensioned.
It has been suggested that this time limit should be thrown down. What would be the result? It could only be, in my judgment, and in the judgment of my predecessors, to throw discredit upon the whole pensionis system. As time goes by, and already 10 years have elapsed since the great bulk of men were demobilised, it must, except in the case of wounds, become gradually impossible for either the man or the Ministry to produce any evidence for or against a claim in respect of an ailment which occurs now only for the first time. In the end, if you did away with the time limit the State would, for a certainty be pressed to admit claims without any evidence at all. This radical change was, in fact, proposed by the Labour party in a Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for West Bromwich in 1923. Under that Bill any man's claim had to be admitted to the extent of giving him a pension at once without the production of any evidence on his part, and that pension would have to continue unless and until the Ministry were able to prove that his ailment was not due to War service. This would be an im
possible position in which to place the Department. The grant of a pension for disablement by War service is a grant of honour from Crown and people. As such it should be based on fact, not on fiction or guesswork, and I have no hesitation in saying that pensioners who have proved their title to that honour would be opposed to a measure that would discredit the whole pension system of the country.
4.0 p.m.
My next point is the system of Final Awards—the principle of a final settlement of the compensation due for every officer's or man's disablement, wherever this can fairly be arrived at. The most general desire and the most frequent case I have put to me when I go about is the case of people who want to get a final award. This system, as it has been worked during the eight years by Ministers of Pensions of all political parties will by the end of this year have brought complete security of their pensions to nearly 500,000 officers and men. The system was challenged in this House three years ago, but the Government upheld it and this House supported it, with the result that another 100,000 officers and men have been given pensions for life, secure against any risk of reduction by Medical Boards, should their condition happily improve, as in many cases it has done. That has been of benefit to the health of the men, and the security is greatly appreciated by the pensioners.
The system has been attacked, as every principle of our working has, from time to time, been attacked, on the strength of complaints from individual cases here and there, which, however exceptional, are supposed to justify the upsetting of the system. The Ministry could have relied upon the letter of the Regulation and have refused to take account of these exceptional cases and have left the hardship unalleviated, but both I and my predecessor—and I wish, in this connection, to do full credit to the arrangements which he made in extension of those I myself had instituted—determined that no cause for genuine complaint should exist. We adopted what is known as the system of correction of error, by which any officer or man who has received a final award, but who subsequently is
found to need hospital treatment and who, at the end of his course of treatment is found to be in a condition of disablement which is seriously at variance with the degree of disablement which had been assumed for the purposes of final settlement, can be, and is given further pension. In taking this basis—the basis of treatment—as both the channel for the discovery of error and the test of its existence, I am satisfied that both my predecessor and I acted wisely, because medical observation and treatment give, as they alone can give, a basis of ascertained fact to the existence of error. As a matter of fact, some 6,000 cases have been given further concessions over and above their final awards. If it is suggested that 6,000 cases mean a very large percentage of error, I am not in agreement, because a total of 6,000 cases is only about 1 per cent. of all the final awards made.
It has been suggested that, notwithstanding that he had a right of appeal to an independent appeal tribunal within a full twelve-month of his award, every man who has had a final award should, nevertheless, be given a further right to appeal at any time and an in definite number of times. But such a proposal must make an end of final awards altogether. There could be no finality of settlement under any such system, and if it were adopted final awards would have to cease to be made, and the Act which has given security of pension to hundreds of thousands of officers and men would have to be repealed. As it is, in place of this unlimited appeal on any and every occasion when an officer or man might be disposed to make a claim for an increase of his pension, we have the solid basis of ascertained fact on which alone we can rely in giving that increase where it is really due.
I come to my last point, the stabilisation of the scales of pension which has been brought about by the present Government. Perhaps I may be allowed to say, in explanation, that I have met with a good deal of confusion in the minds of people who have discussed this matter with me. The final award settles the extent of the man's disablement. He is assessed at 100 per cent., or, as in the case of a man who has lost an eye, 50 per cent. That is the measurement of
his disablement. That is settled for hundreds and thousands of men for life, owing to the final award. But beyond that there was an element of uncertainty.
The cash value of these pensions is stabilised for private soldiers. The 100 per cent. man gets £2 a week, with certain family allowances; the 50 per cent. man gets £1 a week. But that £2 and that £1 were not a fixed and permanent arrangement. The cash value was liable to go up or down under the Warrant of 1919. Since 1919 there has been a great drop, and the Government have made arrangements which protect these men for ever against any reduction in the cash value of their settlement, whatever the fall in the cost of living may be; we have stabilised the cash value of a given assessment against any decline, should there be a fall in the cost of living.
The security given by a final award is security against any reduction of the rate of disablement on which the man's pension is based. But until 10 months ago the actual cash which the man received at his particular rate of disablement might at some time have had to be reduced under the terms of the Royal Warrants if the cost of living fell to a prescribed point. The scales of pension, as the House will remember, were raised to their present figure in 1919, to meet the great increase in prices which was due to the War. The scales of pension had never been reduced since that year, although the cost of living had fallen substantially since the War period. The Government of its own initiative, and without any pressure from outside, took the matter up with a view to bringing about a final settlement, because they realised that there would be real hard-ship if pensioners were still left in insecurity as to their pension income.
We felt that, with the achievement of stability in the principles and working of War Pensions, we could fairly ask the taxpayer to waive the saving that might have been made under the terms of the Warrants—a saving of over £6,000,000 a year—and to obliterate for all time the provision that the scales of pension should be reduced if the cost of living fell. At the same time the Government did more than this—and more, in fact, than it had been suggested they should do—the Government not only preserved the existing scale of pension from
any cash reduction, but they preserved to the pensioner a right to a higher scale of pension if the cost of living should ever come to exceed that of 1919. In other words it was the Government's own plan, and it is much better for the pensioner than anything suggested from outside.
Now I come to a new point which, I am sure, will interest the House. It is the latest development in the matter of War pensions. I have dealt with the security of the pensioner's pension, and I would like now to refer to a scheme which I am considering and which I hope may be brought to fruition before very long—a scheme designed to give greater security to the pensioner from the point of view of his personal and family needs. Some two years ago I made arrangements by which a portion of the pension payable for orphan children could be saved, during the time they were at work and drawing wages, that is between the ages of 14 and 16, so that when they ceased to be eligible for pension they might find a lump sum of £15 to £30 standing to their credit to start them in life, by the time they needed money to start in life. 2,500 children are being benefited in this way, and already about £20,000 belonging to them is invested. This scheme has turned out to be a great boon to the children and I find it welcomed wherever I go.
It has seemed to me that disabled officers and men might be offered similar facilities for saving, not for their start in life, but for the other end of it—their old age or death. At the same time the same idea had occurred to the British Legion, who came to me and suggested very many men would like to make use of the Ministry's machinery to save such portion of their pension as they did not need for current use. I found on inquiry that pensioners were freely investing their pensions in the Savings Bank or in National Savings Certificates. This is not to be wondered at. The great majority of pensioners are in work and drawing full wages, and they can and do in very many cases desire to save the pension. But the ordinary schemes of saving do not altogether meet the future needs of very many of them. They may want to make provision for their widows in addition to any contributory or other
pension which they may get, or to supplement their pensions when they are older, or to set up their children in life or for the purchase of a house at a later date, a plan which fits in well with some of the British Legion's own plans for ex-service men.
I have discussed the possibilities of such a scheme with representatives of the British Legion—and they have welcomed it. The scheme would provide on the basis of free agreement with any pensioner eligible under its terms who chose to take it up, for a saving of so much of his weekly or quarterly pension as he might desire. The saving would carry interest and after a certain number of years, say for example at the age of 60 or later, the pensioner would find standing to his credit a lump sum which he might use either to supplement his pension at once or at a later date or to make some provision for his widow. I have, of course, outlined the scheme in very general terms. I hope through the British Legion to ascertain if some scheme of this kind would be welcomed by pensioners. Should it receive sufficient support to make it worth while to undertake, the Ministry would proceed to work out the necessary detailed arrangements, which would in due course be submitted to Parliament.
I fear that I have taken up a good deal of the time of the House, but at any rate the complaints against the Front Bench occupying too much time are hardly applicable in my case, for I have not previously spoken this Session, and I spoke only a short time at the end of last Session. I have explained the work that is going on, and that has gone on continuously under successive Governments. I hope the House will consider that the work which has been done by the Ministry for ex-service men is not unworthy of the nation and of the men whom we are trying to compensate.

Mr. F. O. ROBERTS: I am sure everyone must have appreciated the very interesting survey which the Minister has given on the work of the Department of which he is the head. Further, everyone will have understood the full meaning of his words and will be ready to accept them as relating to the responsibility which the nation has been prepared to accept for the care of ex-service men and
their dependants. There is not a Member of the House who will question for a moment the efficiency of this great service as it has come within the scope of the survey which the Minister has given to us to-day. But there is another side of the picture, and personally I wish that, in addition to the excellence of his survey of the performances of the Ministry, the right hon. Gentleman had dealt at much further length with the difficulties which are associated with the exceptional cases that he referred to incidentally from time to time. In passing let me bring to mind one observation which the Minister made, as to the 1921 Act having been accepted by the unanimous vote of the House. Strictly speaking, I suppose that is true, but on the Third Beading of the Measure I used words similar to these: That the Act might make it difficult for many men to get their just pension rights While it is true to say that the 1921 Act received a passage through the House of a unanimous kind, there was just that criticism as to how it might work out when it came to be applied.
I would like, in passing, to join with the Minister in the tribute which he has paid to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary, and to say that we on this side appreciate the words which he has used and certainly understand the full value of the services which his colleague has so well rendered. I would also join with him in the tribute which he has paid to that large number of voluntary workers who are assisting in this work in all parts of the country. No one knows better than the head of the Ministry what importance attaches to the great services which these men and women are constantly giving. But I would express a note of criticism even here, and ask the Minister whether he has found a way of taking sufficient note of the expressions of view which come from many war pensions committees from time to time, and whether he will accept the views given by the committees with regard to individual cases brought to their attention. The Minister referred to the fact that I stated that in association with these very difficult and exceptional cases it was well nigh impossible to frame a regulation which would meet them. That is true; I did say that. If that sentence is allied with
other words which I have expressed, I believe that the correctness of the terra would be this, that I feel that by stretching the existing regulations with that degree of human consideration which might be applied it would not, perhaps, be necessary to frame a definite regulation. With the exercise of common sense many of these exceptional and difficult cases could be very properly dealt with as they arose.
May I say a word with regard to the point made by the Minister on the question of the seven years' limit. If I understood him rightly, he implied that successive Governments had accepted this principle in its entirety. If that was the idea in his mind and the sense of the words which he used, I think I am entitled to challenge him. When various deputations met me with regard to this matter, I invariably used words to the effect that the question of the settlement of time limits was one for to-morrow and not for to-day. I used these words because the vast majority of cases which would arise outside the operation of the seven years' limit had still three or four years to run from 1924. The great majority of the men were demobilised in 1919 and came within the seven years' limit in 1926. The others who were demobilised at a later period got a consequent lengthening of the time in which an appeal could be registered. During the intervening period from the end of 1924 to the present moment, I venture to suggest to the House and to the Minister that there has arisen in association with the time limits a set of exceedingly difficult and complicated cases which can only be dealt with by the setting aside of the limits as they now stand. If anything were required to prove the justification of the observation which I have just made, surely it is the Minister's own words in a later section of his speech, when he quite rightly pointed out to the House that there was now operating machinery which brought within pensionable rights the types of cases which can justify a claim. If this be true, what is the objection to wiping away the limits and allowing the claimants either to stand or fall by the strength of the cases which they bring. That is as I see it to-day, and I shall still stand by the observation which I made in this House in the last two or
three pensions Debates. I believe that the words which I used were that if the man's disability arose within seven, 17 or 70 years of his discharge from the Service, and that disability could be traced back to the association with the War, he should be entitled to pensions rights.
I was very much interested in the new scheme which the Minister outlined in the concluding portion of his observations. It is difficult for one to express an opinion as to the merits of the proposal off-hand without having some further opportunity of investigation, but as one sees it in its presentation there appear to be exceedingly good features about it. I think that that is as far as one ought to go at this moment without having had an opportunity of giving it fuller consideration.
The Minister gave us a survey of the present amount which was being chargeable for pension services and the reductions which had come about in various administrative sides of the work.
Amongst the various reductions I particularly call attention to a reduction of £290,000 in the provision for medical treatment. Seeing the number of complaints which we receive from time to time as to the failure of men to get what they feel is adequate treatment for the disabilities from which they are suffering, one is tempted to ask whether there would have been a saving of £290,000 under that particular heading if the men affected had received the just treatment to which they felt they were entitled. The question can also be raised here as to whether too large a section of the responsibility for dealing with the ex-service men is not now being left either to private or to organised charity. If that is so, we are entitled to ask again is there is any justification for the saving under this heading.
I come back to one of the main points of criticism which I wish to level against the work of the Ministry to-day. I want to ask whether more consideration is being given to the exceptional types of cases, which, after all, are those which really matter because the straightforward case is being well met. The country is accepting, as the Minister has well proved, its responsibility and liability in that direction, and therefore the main
point which should concern this House to-day in considering the Minister's statement and position is how far the difficult, the exceptional case, is being met by those who are responsible. I sometimes wonder whether there is not an absence of the human touch, which, after all, makes all the difference in the settlement of the claims which are made. I would like to ask whether the Ministry has devised any means of paying sufficient heed or giving weight to the opinion of a claimant's own medical man when it is set against the opinion expressed by the representatives of the Ministry. If there is no other way, may I ask the Minister whether it is not possible for him to consider, or whether he has considered the possibility of the appointment of an independent medical tribunal to settle questions of purely medical fact? We find that there is an almost constant dispute between the representatives of the Ministry on the medical side as against the opinions which have been expressed by the medical advisers of the particular claimant.
In order to illustrate that point, I wish to produce a case which has received considerable prominence in the Press. In doing this I should like to express my own recognition of the words of warning which the Minister uttered in the earlier portion of his speech this afternoon as to the danger of judging a case on the presentation of one side of the evidence alone. I know that that is not possible, but when we find that when the other side of the picture is presented it has behind it the authoritative medical evidence such as is associated with the case to which I will now draw his attention, the Ministry should also judge the case on the strength of both sides of the picture. The case is that of Frank Smith, and it is a little disturbing to find that this case, which has been supported wholly by the British Legion, and which has had the full support of proper medical evidence, has been turned down time and time again until we find glaring headlines in the papers that the British Legion have presented the case to one of the highest in the country.
I will give the facts as they are presented. The man says that he was demobilised in 1919, and that four months
later he consulted a doctor about trouble with his chest. The doctor assured him that he would be all right and the man did not trouble to put in a claim for pension. He was able to work at intervals and did not want to sponge on the Government or the nation. One can appreciate the spirit of a man who stands in that position. Subsequently the man began to suffer from chest complaints, and in 1925 his doctor told him that he had only about two more years to live. The man then decided, if only for the sake of his wife and children, that he must send in a claim for pension. The claim was not accepted. I find that he was certified by the sanitorium doctor as suffering from tuberculosis. The doctor said:
I am firmly convinced that this man's pulmonary tuberculosis was contracted during the War.
There is no hesitating opinion about that. The doctor says he is "firmly convinced." This man subsequently received the support of two other doctors, Dr. Robson and Dr. Orr, men of high standing in their particular branches of the profession, and they supplied certificates exactly to the same effect as the certificate to which I have referred. I do not want to give publicity to this case, and I do not want to secure any effect because of the sensationalism that has been associated with it. I only make an allusion to it this afternoon because it seems to be the typical type of case, the difficulties of which I have been trying to point out.
I would like to draw attention to the question of sick benefit to widows and orphans. This is a matter with which we had an opportunity of dealing in 1924. I see from the figures that there have been 494 applications for this sickness grant and that only 74 grants have been authorised. Can the Minister give us any explanation of the somewhat grudging consideration which has been given to these applicants for the sickness grant? At any rate, it is one of those matters of administration which, if they were considered with a little more generosity, would wipe away some of the difficulties associated with those who are called upon to live under very trying circumstances.
The next point is in regard to the transference of pension to surviving parents, a comparatively small matter in
itself. I understand that the Ministry take the line that there is no call upon them to notify the surviving parents that they are entitled to the pension on the death of the other parent. We are told that in some cases, owing to the fact that the surviving parent did not understand that there was a right of transference of the weekly sum, the survivor has lost a considerable sum spread over two and even for three years. I wish the Minister of Pensions would give an assurance that that kind of thing shall not happen in future, and that on the death of one parent pensioner, if there is a survivor who is entitled to the pension, that survivor shall have notification and be entitled to draw the pension on the first day on which it is due.
Another question relates to village centres for the treatment of tuberculous patients. We know that a great deal of good work has been done by those who have been charged with the responsibility of dealing with tubercular men, but I should like to know whether the Ministry has given any consideration to the widening of the scope of operations of centres like these which can meet the typical cases of ex-service men which arise from time to time. The British Legion has a very definite policy on the matter and, from the results which have followed the treatment of cases which have come within their hands and the investigations which they have made, there seems now some justification for the conclusion that the proper way of dealing with tubercular ex-service men is to find a means of giving them some useful work under the most congenial and comfortable circumstances. The Minister has seen the Legion's document in which they state their views; therefore there is no need for me to read the extract to him.
The neurasthenics are probably the most difficult of all the cases with which the Ministry is called upon to deal, but it is a difficulty which ought to encourage those responsible for administration to even greater efforts in the future with the object of their being overcome would urge the need for the setting up of greater and wider occupational opportunities for dealing with this particular type of suffering ex-service men. Certain avenues have been traversed in this
direction, and the best opinion has now come to the conclusion that it is only by finding congenial occupations for these patients that we can hope to do anything to bring them either to a complete recovery or to that partial state which will enable them to lead something like a happier life.
The right hon. Gentleman devoted considerable attention to the important question of final awards. I cannot agree altogether with the conclusions that he expressed because, again, the words which he used as to the number of cases, although a small percentage, which have come within the correction of errors, did seem to warrant the observation that of the cases which have come within the operation of the final awards scheme many were of such a nature that it was impossible justly to make a final award. Let me give one type of case which has been brought to my notice this week. A man had a gunshot wound in the wrist, which has paralysed and drawn his hands. He received the usual award for so many weeks. Although it is a long time since he received his final payment, the hand instead of improving has still further withered, but he is told that he has no claim for further pension rights. Those are the facts that have been presented to me, and I understand that documents can be presented to prove the correctness of the statement. I have not the full facts of the case before me at the moment, but if the right hon. Gentleman says that I am wrong in my statement I will see that the papers are presented to him in order that he may look into the matter.
I made reference to the seven years' limit when I was dealing with the Minister's statement on that matter. When he says that all the authorities seem to agree that the abolition of the time limit would not be desirable, may I draw his attention to the view which has been expressed in a statement issued by the British Legion? Whatever may be our views in regard to other organisations which have expressed views in regard to what is wanted in the interests of ex-service men, I think it can be properly claimed that the British Legion is entitled to speak for the many thousands of members who come within its scope. The Legion say:
We are of the opinion that, whilst the onus of proof is on the claimant, disabled officers and men should have the right to submit claims to pension irrespective of any time limit and, if rejected by the Ministry, the right to place their claim before an independent tribunal.
That seems to me justly to meet the claim that can properly be made in regard to the time limit, and I leave the matter with the support which I have quoted from the British Legion. May I present a further point in regard to treatment? This may be a comparatively small point, but it is of importance to those directly concerned. We understand that it takes from three to six days before a man who has applied for treatment receives a visit from the Ministry's medical officer of health. Could not some arrangement be made to avoid the delay and difficulty which must constantly arise and that men might be attended by local doctors on the production of the award showing that the disability has been accepted by the Ministry of Pensions? The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head as to the period of time. I am glad to find that on that score the information supplied to me is not quite accurate. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will look into the matter and see if there is any justification for what I have said.
A further point relates to allowances for children after 21 years of age. Under the warrants the pension of invalid children unable to earn a livelihood may be continued until the age of 21. A few cases have been brought to my notice where the incapacitated child on reaching the age of 21 has lost the grant which has been made. Is it not possible for the Minister to frame a Regulation which would meet the particular circumstances of this class of child? There does not seem to be any question that if the father had lived these incapacitated children would have been properly cared for, and as the State accepted the responsibility in the case of the child who is incapacitated and unable to earn a living, it seems only a just conclusion that the State should accept that responsibility so long as the child lives. One further point in regard to patients who are receiving hospital treatment. The Ministry point out that a certain man in a mental hospital
is provided with treatment and in the event of his recovery and discharge (and in that event only) he will be entitled to receive the difference between an allowance at the maximum pension rate of 40s. weekly and the total cost of his treatment, including any pocket money paid to him by the medical superintendent, and the payments made to you…. In the event of your son's death occurring while he is in the mental hospital, no balance will too payable to his estate.
There, again, there seems to be a little hardship on a surviving parent. Would it not be possible so to arrange the finances of the Ministry that this obligation might be justly met, and avoid any penalising effect by the withholding of any balance which has accrued?
May I summarise the points which I have made? In the first place, we appeal for a continuance of the application of the human touch. Without that, none of these exceptional cases are likely to be adequately met. We want the benefit of the doubt to be real. We are given to understand that the Ministry have always held the view that the applicants must always receive the benefit of the doubt. One wonders sometimes if that does always obtain, in view of the fact that we get a number of exceptional cases arising from time to time. I would like to see the operation of that instruction or Regulation of the Ministry applied to such an extent that the benefit of the doubt shall be given in every conceivable case. We ask for more generous consideration of sick benefit claims for widows and orphans; that notification that a parent's pension is transferable shall be given to the surviving parent; that the needs of the tubercular men shall receive the fullest consideration, in conjunction with those who may be responsible for the development of village settlements; that more occupational opportunities shall be found for the neurasthenics; that remedies shall be found as speedily as possible for the unsatisfactory position created by final awards; that treatment application shall be more quickly dealt with; that children's allowances after 21 years of age may be continued, and that the seven years' time limit shall be abolished.
The State realises its duty and is ready to meet its obligation to compensate justly those who suffered as a result of war injuries. This House has many times declared that the benefit of the doubt is
to be given to all applicants. The nation has undoubtedly supported that view, and means to see that the ex-service men shall have a fair and square deal; but the many hardship complaints show that that ideal has not been altogether realised. I would make an appeal to the Minister that something shall be done to meet a greater number of the exceptional hardship cases.
I admit that the work of this great Department must be firmly controlled, but its functioning can and must be sweetened by human sympathy, understanding and common sense. The application of hard-and-fast Regulations is bound to mean failure and consequent hardship or injustice, which result in the disappointment and discontent which we find in certain directions to-day. No Department of State commands more public sympathy and support than the Pensions Ministry, and whatever may be done to see that the nation's pledge to those who fought is not broken will be received with approval on all sides.

Sir BASIL PETO: It is with real pleasure that I rise after the speech of the Minister of Pensions which, in its main aspects, gave great satisfaction in all quarters of the House. He told us the history of pensions administration during the last four or five years. There was no part of the story which the House received with greater satisfaction than that in which he stated that out of every pound of the Ministry of Pensions Vote all but 5½d. goes into the pockets of the pensioners, compared with administrative expenses of 1s. 3d. in the pound in 1920. There has been a very notable reduction in that respect during the past four years.
The decision of the Government with regard to the stabilisation of pension rates is of immense importance to the pensioners and will give great satisfaction to the country as a whole. We cannot ask for more than that whatever the cost of living may be there shall be no reduction in the amount of pension, and that if the cost of living rises above the level contemplated when the rate of pension was fixed the pension can be increased. That is as it should be; and it will be a great satisfaction to pensioners to realise that there can be no drop at any time in the amount of the weekly allowances they get. The Minister
says this costs £6,000,000 a year. It is an expenditure which the country will not grudge. A statement which gave me great satisfaction was that at the present time there are 50 or 60 new cases being admitted weekly as good claims for pensions. A considerable number of final awards have ceased to be final because they have been reviewed, and of the cases barred by the seven years limit, some 300 or 400 have been allowed. It is with regard to these that I want to trouble the House for a few moments.
The Minister of Pensions has said that we are apt to consider these cases after having heard only one side I do not think that that is so. When I have brought a case before the Ministry, being a persistent person, it has generally involved a considerable correspondence before I admit myself beaten, if I ever do, and every aspect of the case of the Ministry against the claim of the pensioner is put most fully, and I must say most ably, before me. We are given ample opportunity to hear the other side; and we are bound to give great consideration to it. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Ministry can only be conducted under definite rules, which he admitted must be administered with a certain elasticity; that there must be exceptional cases. There has been a large diminution in the number of officials, but there are still very many. Naturally, all the many cases brought forward by hon. Members and the British Legion are sifted and considered by officials. I do not make any complaint about the officials at the Ministry of Pensions but it is a well-known fact that the official mind, which has to administer certain definite rules, comes to regard those rules as so perfect, almost inspired, that they are quite satisfied, provided the case is considered and decided in strict accordance with the rules. It is difficult to get that elasticity which is required in the pensions administration into the official mind and I am glad that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have been there to consider many of these cases themselves.
With regard to the seven years' limit, I am glad to hear that some 300 or 400 cases have already been admitted. There must he very many. I have one which came to my notice only to-day, and it is a typical case, of a man who
was not quite sure whether it was necessary for him to put in a claim for a pension. He did not want to put in a claim, as he took a cheerful view of matters; he thought he would be all right and was going to work. Gradually he found that blood poisoning, which was caused by coming into contact with barbed wire entanglements during the War, was affecting him now. The man's name is G. T. Brayley of Bideford, in my own constituency. I shall put that case before the Minister with greater confidence now that oases beyond the seven years' limit are being admitted. I am perfectly certain that the number will grow. They ought not to be looked upon as being bogus claims; these cases must occur and should be regarded with the utmost sympathy.
I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Pensions to two specific cases arising in my own constituency. One is the case of a widow's pension to a Mrs. Stafford, the widow of a sapper in the Royal Engineers. He commenced his service at the beginning of the War and all went well until 1916, when he became ill. In the Ministry of Pensions' own words he was suffering from "pyrexia and debility," which involved transferring him from Malta to Salonika, and ultimately to the United Kingdom, where he was in hospital for seven months. I have consulted a medical Member of the House and he tells me that pyrexia does not necessarily mean tuberculosis. It might arise from various conditions. Not being able to give any opinion of my own, I call the attention of the House to this fact, that after this period at Malta, Salonika and at home in hospital, the man was adjudged to be perfectly well, so well that he was sent abroad again and served continuously after that until the end of the War in 1918. He was demobilised in 1919. In 1917 he married, and the Ministry of Pensions says that the widow has no right to a pension at all under Article 17B, because their medical advisers consider that the tuberculosis from which he ultimately died really commenced before 1916, and they quote against the man a statement which he himself made, namely, that the tuberculosis from which he was then suffering, that is in January, 1919, started probably
in May, 1916, being due to exposure while on active service. The Ministry decided that the widow had no claim to a wife's allowance as he did not marry until after his removal from duty on account of the disability for which he received his pension.
Surely, if the man was considered fit enough to be sent abroad again on active service and, in fact, served for another two years, it is fair to assume that it was his War service after his marriage which was responsible for his death, and that the widow is entitled to a pension under Article 17B. Another point arises. The pension actually awarded to the widow under 17A was 10s. a week, half the pension of 20s. a week which was the man's pensionable rate, but for several years before he died he had received 40s. per week treatment allowance, and 10s. per week for his wife. Although it was found that his pension of 20s. per week was quite inadequate and that he required hospital treatment owing to the state of his disease, and although he and his wife had received 50s. per week for some years, yet, when the man dies, we are told that his pensionable rate of 20s. per week had been subsumed—whatever that might mean—and that when it came to a question of pension for the widow she is only to get half of 20s. per week. When that pension Regulation was fixed there were no widows' pensions, and what the Ministry is doing in cases like these—has actually done in Mrs. Stafford's case—is to say that a widow may have the 10s. per week which she would have got under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act. The Ministry are giving her nothing at all, although they say they have given enormous consideration to the case and have made her a special allowance of 10s. per week. I hold that this is one of those cases where you want a little elasticity and the human touch. It is not a bogus claim at all, and should be considered from the point of view, can we justify giving this widow a pension which we believe she requires? The Ministry should not try to find some reason for disallowing it.
5.0 p.m.
The other case is that of a dependant's pension. It is the case of Mrs. Physick, of Elm Cottage, Georgeham. I asked a question about it last year. The woman is 72 years of age, nearly blind, and
recently lost her husband. She had three sons in the War, and two of them were killed. All she is getting is a dependant's pension of 9s. 2d. per week. I want to know why we are saving the 10d. per week? Why is the widow not getting 5s. per week in respect of each of the two sons? The answer I got when I put this case was somewhat long. It was to the effect that under Article 21 (1) (c) of the Royal Warrant, dependants' pensions were payable only when the son was under 26 years of age at the outbreak of the War. Only one of Mrs. Physick's sons fulfilled these conditions and she was granted a flat rate pension of 5s. per week in respect of him. The other son was over 26 years of age, and she was granted 4s. 2d. because, although she was not entitled to anything, as the son was over 26 years of age, it was found that before the War, that is 15 years ago, when she was 15 years younger and able to earn something herself, he was allowing her 2s. per week. In consideration of that the Ministry of Pensions gave her 4s. 2d. per week. Is it seriously contended that the people of this country, when the Pensions Vote is going down by £2,750,000 per year, desire to save 10d. per week in respect of the dependant's allowance of an aged widow, 72 years of age, who is almost blind and unable to do anything for herself? Why do not the Ministry recognise that the assistance which old people get from their children increases as the old people get older? When they are comparatively young, as this woman was before the War, it is not expected that the children will do so much, and the Ministry ought to realise that it is now, 14 and 15 years after the War, when her children would be doing much more for her than they were before. In the ordinary course of events a man's position improves after 14 or 15 years and he is able to make a larger provision for his widowed mother. If this widow had received 5s. a week in respect of each son she would not have been treated with undue generosity, and I ask the Minister to reconsider her ease and to see whether he can justify this paltry economy of 10d. a week.
The Minister referred to a new scheme for putting aside and banking savings from pensions as well as from orphan allowances, and said he was going to in
clued an arrangement in the scheme for a rate of interest. Can he tell us what the rate of interest is likely to be? I urge that it should be a generous one, approximating to the rate which the Treasury have to pay when they borrow money. I do not want to see these savings given some meagre rate of interest like 2½ per cent. They ought to have the best rate of interest which the country can afford. I was expecting to hear in respect of orphans savings that the Ministry were going to include in their scheme some arrangement by which they would add something to the nest egg in those cases. At any rate I am sure the scheme is a sound one, if administered in a liberal spirit and I hope we shall learn from the Minister that the rate of interest is to be much better than the rate in the Post Office Savings Bank.

Mr. BARKER: I should be the last to find fault with the way in which the Minister has performed his duties. I know from experience that, he has the greatest sympathy with the ex-service men and their dependants. I wish to draw the attention of the House, however, to the operation of the seven years' limit. This rule was introduced in 1921 just three years after the War, and I submit that it was made without sufficient experience. There have been hundreds of thousands of cases in which men who were wounded, were not actually incapacitated at the time, but were totally incapacitated later on by the after effects of those wounds. To apply an arbitrary rule of this character, after a short experience, was a great mistake. The British Legion which has been brought into being to look after the interests of ex-service men and their dependants, and which has as far as my experience goes, done that work admirably, is entirely against the seven years' limit. To my mind the limit is utterly indefensible. How can anyone say that after seven years, eight years or 10 years, injuries received on active service will not manifest themselves? Some years ago, I brought before the House the case of a friend of mine who served in the War and was wounded in the abdomen as a result of shell fire. He recovered apparently, but years afterwards, some of the pieces of shell were dislocated from where they had lodged, resulting in septic poisoning, from which the man died. Fortunately
for his widow he died just three weeks before the seven years' limit would have operated. That case in itself is a strong condemnation of this arbitrary rule.
I know that the Minister has undertaken the responsibility of investigating these cases personally but we on this side are at a big disadvantage. I asked the Minister a short time ago how many cases had been turned down owing to the operation of the limit, but he did not give me the information. I think he has stated today the number of cases which have been brought outside the limit, and in which pensions have been given. I would like information as to the number of cases in which pensions have been refused under this rule. A short time ago I brought before the Minister a case which is endorsed and supported by the British Legion in Abertillery. It is the case of a Mrs. Alice Birchall, whose husband died after the expiration of the seven years' period. He was maintaining his family out of a pension, and when he died the family were left without any support. The widow applied for pension and this is what the tribunal said:
The tribunal find that the appellant is ineligible for pension under Article 11 of the Royal Warrant as the deceased did not die within seven years of the receipt of his wounds or injury, or removal from duty, or termination of active service. The tribunal further find, having regard to the terms of Article 17B of the Royal Warrant that the death of the late R. Birchall cannot be certified as wholly due to conditions resulting directly from War service.
Here is a glaring example—a case in which there is a grave doubt expressed by the tribunal itself, but the Minister and his Department appropriate to themselves the benefit of the doubt. The Minister says there are many cases, where there is little evidence either for or against the appellant but in every case the Ministry gets the benefit of the doubt. Although the hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head, I am afraid that, in the operation of this rule, great injustice is being done to many ex-service men and their dependants. The Minister referred to the fact that £913,000,000 had been spent by the Department since the War. While that is a vast sum of money, it has been distributed among a great many, and has alleviated incalculable misery. There is no more important Department of the Government than that
over which the hon. and gallant Gentleman presides, and, when considering the cost of pensions, we ought not to forget that already £3,000,000,000 has been paid in interest on debt arising out of the War. As against the £913,000,000 given to the pensioners, we should remember that the wealthy people of this country have had that vast amount of money from the State. In regard to striking off children at 15 years of age I would appeal to the Minister to set an example to the Education Department and make it 16 years instead of 15. He has saved £3,000,000 this year and has saved an enormous amount since he has been in office. With a congested labour market it would be doing a very useful thing, as well as a very worthy thing for the State, if the Minister could have the law altered in this respect.

Major TRYON: What law?

Mr. BARKER: I understood that the Minister said this afternoon that £1,000,000 would be saved in respect of these children on their attaining the age of 15 years.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I ought to point out to the hon. Member that if an alteration of the law is necessary it cannot be discussed, but if the change can be made by Warrant, that is another matter.

Major TRYON: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. He is advocating that allowances should continue until the age of 16. They do continue to the age of 16 at present.

Mr. BARKER: I am very glad to hear it and I am obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his correction. In conclusion I have only to repeat that the Department has been administered with great humanity, but the seven years limit is protested against by ex-service men throughout the length and breadth of the country and I hope that the Minister will consider these cases on their own merits and not with reference to any arbitrary time limit.

Captain FRASER: May I ask hon. Members to allow the other side of this seven years limit question to be put to them, in order that it may be considered in the fair and peaceful atmosphere which we have in the House this afternoon, and
which, I am sure, all sides welcome. It is most satisfactory that a pensions Debate can take place at this time in a calm and friendly atmosphere. I dislike the seven years limit. It cannot be defended on logical grounds. Yet there are two sides to the question. There are certain men—fortunately a relatively small number—who have been definitely wounded in the War, who have been given pensions for life or conditional pensions, and with regard to whom there is no shadow of doubt that their disabilities arise out of War service. They are the genuine cases. There are 5,000,000 persons who have served in the War, all of whom for the rest of their natural lives will be subject to one trouble or another. Their troubles may arise out of civilian employment, out of disease contracted in civil life, out of mere old age; but it is perfectly clear that nobody can tell whether any trouble which arises in the subsequent lives of these men is or is not, in some way, directly or indirectly, attributable to War service. It is probably true that War service had an effect and left its mark upon every individual who suffered at all seriously, but not all of the 5,000,000 men who were recruited did substantial War service. Some were in this island for the greater part of their service, and it is by no means the case that every ex-service man was subjected to hardship.
Are we to go to the extreme of saying that every man who served shall, at the expense of the State, have a right of appeal for the rest of his life lest an injustice should be done? That would be the result of changing the Act of Parliament which imposed the seven years limit. If we do so, we are going to waste money on administration, instead of spending it principally on the pensioners. We should require to increase the staff of the Ministry to deal with scores of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of appeals. Obviously every man will say to himself, "I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by having a shot at it." That is only human nature, and I would not blame the ex-service man for "having a shot at it." But I ask hon. Members to consider this side of the matter. As the Minister has said, to have been placed definitely in the category of men disabled by War service, is not merely an honour but a privilege. That
privilege can only be weakened if hundreds of thousands—indeed millions—are to be allowed to participate in it.
I hope I shall not be considered selfish. I am the last to wish that a genuine case should be overlooked. I represent some 2,000 of the most severely disabled men whose feelings I understand and whose circumstances I know, and I am certain they support the general policy of the Ministry, which is to see that the men who were severely disabled should have generous allowances and have them guaranteed for life, instead of spreading the money over a wider field and giving small allowances all round for any trivial disability. By concentrating the available State funds on those who have been severely disabled we can do real good, but by spreading it, we may not be able to do the right thing by the serious cases. I dislike the seven years' limit. It is theoretically objectionable, and much propaganda has made it appear to be objectionable in practice, but, in my judgment, the statement of the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker) that many cases of hardship have arisen out of it, is incorrect. I do not charge the hon. Member with deliberately making wrong statements. I am sure he thinks there are many cases of hardship, but in my judgment there are so few that it cannot honestly be said that this is a matter of great public interest. If the Minister gives a guarantee that special precautions will be taken to consider any special cases that arise we may be nearly satisfied. I do not say quite satisfied, because there are theoretical objections to the limit.
If we could devise a means of getting rid of the limit without premitting all these 5,000,000 men for the rest of their days to appeal and appeal and appeal; if some way could be found to remove the theoretical objection and yet retain the measure of security which the real pensioner wants, it would be a very happy thing. I hope that it may not be beyond the wit of the Department, the ability of whose Minister and officials I greatly admire, to find a way out of that difficulty. May I, in conclusion, say something which I think expresses the view of Members in all parts of this House and the general view of ex-service men as a whole. We recognise in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the present
Minister one who, from the Parliamentary point of view, and from the Departmental point of view, has devoted more time, ability and understanding to the task of pensions administration in Britain than any other individual. He has been connected with the Department now for nine years, and at the end of this long term of office may I be permitted to say that the whole House would wish to thank him for the generous, the able, and humane way in which he has conducted the Ministry.

Mr. MARCH: I do not propose to go into the question of the seven years' limit, although I could give a number of cases that have come to my notice, but I hope the Minister will pay particular attention to those cases that have been brought before him. I want to bring to his notice a letter that I have received from the brother-in-law of an ex-service man who is in a very bad predicament. I only came by this letter yesterday, and I have not had an opportunity of putting it before the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary. I know that if I had, I should have got reasonable consideration from them. It is the case of a man who served for two years in France, joining the Army in 1916 and being discharged as physically unfit in 1919. He received a pension for a time, but he has been under six operations, the last of which was the extraction of a piece of metal from his stomach. They had to take a piece of flesh from his leg to put over the wound in the stomach, and now gangrene has developed in the leg, and he is informed by his doctor that he will probably lose his leg. His pension has been stopped for some considerable time, but it seems to me that if they can take a piece of metal out of a man, it must be something to do with his War service. He has to depend upon the Poplar Board of Guardians for assistance, and he has a wife and four children.
A gentleman writes to me and says the guardians are allowing this man £l 10s. a week and 18s. 6d. in kind, out of which he has to pay 12s. rent. They are trying to exist on that. The worry, anxiety, and trouble have caused his wife to be very queer, and she has had to be taken into St. Andrew's Hospital under the Poplar Guardians. We hear in this
House a great deal of strong comment upon the action of the Poplar Board of Guardians and their generosity, that they throw money away, but we have got in Poplar a number of cases in which pensions have been stopped, and they have had to go to the Board of Guardians. Here is a case where the board of guardians is actually paying £2 8s. 6d. a week to an ex-service man who has got no pension, and we believe we could prove many instances in Poplar of people being relieved by the local authority who ought to be relieved by the nation.
I had a case recently, which was considered by the Minister, of a man who had been in France three years, who came home totally unfit, received a full 100 per cent. pension, got bronchitis, which turned to asthma, was in and out of hospital five different times, and from the pain and suffering he went through, when he met some of his friends he indulged in their generosity by accepting some refreshment. It is presumed that that refreshment was too strong for him. He went home and, in the absence of his wife, hanged himself, and yet the medical officer states that he hanged himself while in drink, and because of that his widow and children were disentitled to a pension from the Ministry. After the experience of such cases as that, we think the Ministry might be more generous in many of these cases. I do not doubt that a good number of cases have had the generous consideration of the Minister, but we could bring forward a number of cases which have not had that generous consideration that we think they ought to have had. I hope that if I send the facts of this particular case along to the Minister, he will have it looked into and see if something can be done for this man and his wife and family.

Sir FRANK MEYER: No one could complain of the tone of the Debate today, and it is very welcome that these matters should be raised above party controversy as far as possible, but I think it is a legitimate ground of comment that the programme which the Labour party are supporting on the eve of the Election goes considerably further than any action which they saw fit to take during their brief tenure of office. I do not want to emphasise that too strongly, as I realise
the brevity of their term of office and the fact that they were partly dependent on the support of the party below the Gangway opposite, who are absent today, but that is a contrast which I think one might legitimately make if they should, as they have not done to-day, use the points put forward in the Debate as an electioneering asset during the forthcoming campaign.
Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser), I also am disturbed about the present position of the seven years' time limit. It seems to me to be a question of the choice between two evils. On the one side, undoubtedly, if you sweep away the time limit, you will get an enormous volume of claims, many of which will probably be frivolous. On the other side, I will not say there is the possibility of grave injustice being done under the present system, but there is certainly the possibility of men whose cases, genuine in their own belief, are turned down by the Minister feeling a great sense of injustice. There is always the possibility of a man feeling a sense of injustice, even when his case has been most carefully tried, but on the whole the experience is that when a man has been before an independent appeal tribunal very rarely is there much sense of injustice left. I have had some experience of that sort of thing. Whenever any of my own constituents come before that tribunal, and they ask me to be there, I make a point of attending to hear their case and to give them a little confidence. I do not say that my presence there has the least effect on the result of the appeal. I am not claiming that, like a successful lawyer, I am helping their case, but in the case of nervous men, and particularly of widows, it gives them considerable confidence.
I should like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute, not only to the fairness of that independent tribunal—I think everybody agrees with that—but to its great humanity. They try to introduce the human touch, because men, and especially women, coming from a long distance in the country to appear before the tribunal often enter the room paralysed with fright, just as they might enter the witness box to be cross-examined by some leading counsel. But the tribunal puts them at their ease as
soon as possible, and, therefore, I think that those who appear before that tribunal very seldom go away with any real sense of injustice. They may think the decision has been wrong, but they know they have had a fair trial. On the other hand, if a man, outside the seven years' limit, who thinks he has a good case has this case turned down by the Minister, without appeal to an independent tribunal—I have had experience of a few such cases—he feels a certain sense of injustice; and I wish it were possible to devise some means by which those who have a genuine case and are outside the seven years' limit could have it tried eventually before an independent tribunal.
If this House were to decide to do away with the time limit, I think it would have to add some machinery for sifting those cases. It would be impracticable to have the millions of cases that would arise for years to come, 10 or 20 years ahead, before the Ministry. I think some local machinery would have to be set up, some local, voluntary board, consisting perhaps of a doctor, an ex-service man, a magistrate, and one or two others, people of common sense and experience, who would sift these cases at regular intervals—and they would get fewer and fewer—and would only permit them to go up to the Ministry if an applicant had shown that there was a very real connection between his ailment and his war service and that there was a genuine reason why he had not brought his appeal within the seven years' limit.
There are two different classes of people who come to me after they have been turned down on account of the time limit, and who want to have their cases reheard. The first is the class of man who, on his own admission, has not within the seven years suffered any ailment or evil result from a wound he may have had. He comes for the first time after the seven years. These are cases which seem to me to rest purely on medical evidence, and if we could convince a local tribunal that there was a definite medical change, I think everyone of those cases should be considered as of right, not merely as an act of grace. There are other cases—and I think they are the harder cases—of men, slightly incapacitated during the War, who were able to take up a job after
demobilisation, and who, being in a good job, were most anxious not to prejudice their chances in the labour market by appearing not to be wholly healthy or sound, and rather than appeal for a pension, which would inevitably be only a small pension if they were able to do work, did not appeal. I know cases of this kind, where, perhaps seven, eight or nine years after the War, having all the time suffered slightly from the effect of some wound from War service, at the end of that time have found themselves worse and unable to carry on with their job. I could give two or three cases of that kind. It is very hard that a man who has played the game like that, and who has preferred to earn his living as best he could, regardless of some slight pain or discomfort or ailment, should be penalised as a result of his pluck and courage, and I think some system should be devised by which such cases should have the right eventually of going to an independent tribunal.
I have had correspondence at different times with my right hon. and gallant Friend on cases of this nature—not a great many, I admit—but I have never quite been able to arrive at the principle on which he works in administering this new system, under which in special cases he is prepared to review appeals outside the seven years' limit. I suppose that if he once laid down a general principle, he would be inviting a large number of applications from people who thought they came within its terms. I admit quite frankly that on this matter I find myself rather sitting on the fence. I am against the seven years' limit. I would like to see everybody given a chance where the case was really genuine, and if there could be some method of eliminating frivolous people; but, like the hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras, I do not quite like the idea of this vast number of appeals possibly going on for years and years. Something must be done to limit that. If we are going to do away with the seven years' limit, and if someone could bring forward a practical scheme on these lines, I should support it. I am glad to see that the British Legion, in the pamphlet which they have issued in view of the General Election, say, at the end of the paragraph dealing with the seven years' limit:
The Legion does not desire to encourage frivolous claims and is quite prepared to discuss with the Minister any formula for ensuring that only those cases of men who have a real claim prima facie should be considered.
If something could be put up on those lines, regardless of party, I should certainly support it. This pamphlet really has been the brief on which the arguments put forward by the party opposite to-day have mainly been founded. There are only certain points with regard to ex-service men which are still open to public criticism, and on the whole this is a most admirably framed statement, moderate, reasonable, and one to which no objection can be taken. I should say that with a large percentage of it everybody would agree, and one is glad to think the Legion has still succeeded in keeping itself entirely free from party politics.
May I add my own tribute to the sympathy and consideration which I have always received from my right hon. and gallant Friend and his colleague throughout the last four years? Whenever there has been a really difficult case which required personal attention and consideration, it has never been stinted in any way, and I am confident of this, that no Minister in the past can ever have taken more real, human interest in the whole question of the ex-service men than has my right hon. and gallant Friend. He has done perhaps even more than his predecessors—he has had a longer opportunity, of course—in getting into close, personal touch with the representatives of the ex-service men all over the country. It is the close, personal, human touch that really tells, and I know that the Committee and the ex-service men are really grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for all that he has done.

Sir MARTIN CONWAY: I wish to say two or three words about these exceptional cases in relation to the seven years' limit. I think the seven years' limit is a very wise provision. I think it ought to be maintained, but I think it ought to be interpreted with great humanity and sympathy, especially in one class of cases. I refer to the cases of consumption. I have come across certain cases of that kind, two of which especially made a deep impression upon me. Both were cases of men who were badly gassed in the War. They apparently
recovered after considerable periods of illness, and returned more or less to a normal, though somewhat weakened, condition of life. Then, later on, they began to show signs of consumption. In one case the man was afraid to go to a doctor lest he should tell him he had consumption. He feared to receive sentence of death and, therefore, held off for a year or two. He was a gardener, living in the open air under the most healthy conditions, and he hoped for the best, as he had ups and downs and sometimes felt perfectly well. But, finally, he had to submit Himself to a medical examination, and then it was clearly discovered that he was the victim of consumption and that he had it in rather a pronounced degree. But then the seven years' limit had passed, and it was too late for him to come under the ordinary rules in relation to disabilities and pensions. The British Legion stretched a point and took him into their hospital, where he has recently died, leaving a widow who was entirely dependent upon him. There is a case in which there is no doubt at all. The man was strong and healthy before the War, and his doctors inform me that it was the result of his being gassed that he fell into this condition in which consumption developed, causing his death last week.
The other case is very similar. The same thing happened, and the same kind of delay occurred. The man was in a better position in life than the other man whom I have mentioned, being dependent on his father, who had certain moderate resources, and he put himself under treatment and went to Switzerland, I think, for a year, being apparently cured. He returned to his work as a public school master, but after a year or more the consumption returned, and the case became hopeless. He has a wife and two children depending upon him. Both those cases were in fact eases of war disability. They resulted quite definitely, I believe, from the misfortunes of these individuals in the War, but they are ruled out because of the seven years' limit. I think that possibly cases such as those, especially consumption cases, which may have required treatment over a long period of years, might be considered with a little more waiving of definite forms and rulings.
There cannot be many of them, and they are very hard cases indeed. I ask the Minister to see whether it is not possible to treat these unfortunate men with generosity and to provide them with some comfort in their disease; and to give some compensation to their widows in the case of their death.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: The House is to be congratulated upon being able to deal with the subject of pensions purely from the non-party point of view, for we look back with gratitude to these men who fought for us and suffered, who did not go out because they believed in any particular party, but simply because they were Britons. We in this House regard them in that way and I am sure that from every side there is a wholehearted desire that they should get full and accurate justice meted out to them. Yet from the speeches which we have heard, from the records which have been given, from the questions which we very often see put down in the House, we feel that there are certain cases which are causing difficulties, and that there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction among Members and among the people of the country; and that a doubt has been expressed both here and elsewhere as to whether justice is being meted out to the ex-service men. It is a subject in which the medical profession is intimately concerned, because, when all is said and done, it depends upon the skill and accuracy of diagnosis and assessment of the profession as to whether any ex-service man can make a case or not. We have to remember that we have to hold the scales of justice with an equal poise, remembering on the one hand the taxpayer, and on the other the ex-service man.
I do not quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser), who seemed to give the impression that there was only a certain definite sum of money, and that it was better to concentrate that upon the genuinely wounded than to fritter it out over the whole of the ex-service men. I do not regard the question in that way. I say that there is an unlimited sum of money, and that all the Minister has to do is to say what amount he requires for his service, and that this House will grant it to him. Although we have to hold the scales of justice, we have also to remember that
the House upon more than one occasion has, by Statute and Royal Warrant, agreed to a certain course of action and to certain powers of the Minister. The Minister is bound by the Warrants and Statutes until the House in its wisdom sees fit to alter them. The one point upon which we are all agreed is that, in any case of doubt, the pensioner should receive the benefit of it. We may take it, speaking generally, that the great majority of these men who claim for pensions honestly believe that they have a genuine case. Yet it is so easy to make a mistake. May I show the House roughly what I mean.
There is a certain class of case which everybody, layman as well as medical man, would recognise as simply due to war injury, such as the loss of an eye, the loss of a limb, gunshot wound or shrapnel wound. Everybody would recognise that these were war injuries, and that the men suffering from them were entitled to pensions. We form our opinion from the knowledge that we have and from our common sense. There is a second class of case which we are quite convinced is not due to war injuries. We have to remember that because a man has been to the War, it does not necessarily follow that every illness and injury that he gets is the result of his having been to the War. For instance, if an ex-service man were to develop smallpox or scarlet fever, and then put in a claim for a pension, saying that it was due to war service, hon. Members would at once say that it was an illegitimate claim, because they would know from their own knowledge that it was impossible for such a thing to have been the result of war service.
Such cases as these, therefore, cases which are genuine from our knowledge and cases which are not genuine from our knowledge, should not arise. Medical men with a certain amount of experience are equally as certain in other classes of case whether they are due to war injury or not. Members have letters from constituents of ex-service men, apparently very sad cases, and perhaps cases of paralysis. A man will say that he was perfectly all right when he went to the War, and after five or six years he develops a certain form of paralysis, and thinks that it must be a case of injury
or shock or nervous stress due to the War, but medical men know that that paralysis is definitely the result of venereal disease. Nothing can cause that paralysis but venereal disease, and therefore we say that it is not due to the War. The medical man by his knowledge is able to give an accurate diagnosis, but the layman or laywoman does not recognise this, and thinks that a certain act of injustice has been done.
There is the third class of the doubtful case, which is even doubtful to the medical man. Medicine is not an exact science. We are not yet masters of all disease; we do not always know the cause of disease and we do not always know the prognosis of disease. We have therefore a neutral ground where there is room for difference of opinion. What is the proper and right thing to do in this debatable ground? It is to see that we have the highest, the best and the most competent medical advice before confirming an opinion, because we must and we can only depend upon medical advice when we have to decide on the question of entitlement and assessment. People have wondered whether sometimes the Ministry have acted quite as leniently as they might, and whether they have been as humane as they might be. I should like to put in a tribute to the extreme courtesy, kindness and humanity of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister. Whenever I have gone to him he has received me with the greatest sympathy, and has done all that he possibly could. Last week I had the opportunity of meeting the Minister, and I expressed a certain amount of difficulty in which I was concerning the administration of his Medical Department. He kindly offered me the opportunity of interviewing any of his medical staff, and arranged for me to meet the Director-General of Medical Services in the Pensions Ministry and his Deputy.
Perhaps the House will allow me to state briefly the procedure, because it was new to me to a certain extent, and I am certain that there are Members in the House who do not know what happens. The Medical Department of the Ministry have three main duties. First, they deal with the boards and the assessment and entitlement of a man's award from the medical point of view. Second,
certification and the necessity of treatment or for treatment allowances. Third, a non-medical branch which deals with the supply of hospital apparatus, artificial limbs, etc. The boards are held at board centres in the principal areas of the Ministry, which in turn are in the principal cities. The board consists of a chairman-assessor, who may be a whole-time or sessional man, who has been a whole-time medical officer of the Ministry. Then there is an appropriate specialist, who in the main is employed on a part-time basis. Thus you have on the area boards a chairman-assessor, a man of experience and knowledge, and of particular knowledge in the peculiar work belonging to the Ministry of Pensions; then there is a sort of rota from which a specialist assessor can be selected to deal with particular cases. If they are dealing with consumption, they have a man skilled in that class of case; or if dealing with neurasthenia a man skilled in neuasthenia. There is therefore on the area board two men who are expert medical men, fit and competent to give a decision.
6.0 p.m.
When they give a decision, it passes through the Deputy-Commissioner of Medical Services, and goes to the Awards Branch in London. At this branch the recommendations of the area board are considered. Further information may be asked for, and there are in the Ministry a number of trained medical assessors who can deal with particular types of cases again. They may be specialists on certain diseases, such as tuberculosis and neurasthenia, so that when these particular cases come up to the awards branch, if they are not quite satisfied, and if there be anything which they want explaining, they can refer it to another group of specialists. Further questions may be asked of the area board, and the long and short of it is that after it has passed through the area board and when it has been considered by the awards branch in London, we may safely say that every skill and medical attention has been given to the case under review by expert medical men. I was interested to find that the medical branch of the Ministry of Pensions is concerned solely with the matter of entitlement and assessment, and that the financial aspect never comes within their purview. After making the entitlement and assessment, they refer the case to another branch of the Ministry,
the lay branch, which makes the financial interpretation of the medical men's decision. I think, therefore, we can say that the medical men attached to the Ministry are absolutely fair and unbiased and anxious to do the best they possibly can for the ex-service men. We have heard to-day that 96 per cent. of the people employed at the Ministry are ex-service men and women and it naturally follows that they would have a very sympathetic interest with these men.
As I have said, I had the privilege of meeting these two gentlemen, who received me very courteously, and, in answer to my inquiries, gave me all the information for which I asked. I went so far as to ask them what had been the decision in certain classes of cases, and they told me, and then I put hypothetical cases of my own. I said, "Suppose such and such a thing happened, what would be the attitude of the Department?" They said, "In such cases we have decided so and so." I came away from a very long interview perfectly convinced that the medical department of the Ministry were more than fair to the ex-service man. In fact, speaking as a medical man, I would not have passed some of the cases which they passed. I will give an example. There was a case of a man who had syphilis before the War and after the War developed symptoms of general paralysis of the insane, which came on, perhaps, a little sooner than might have been expected. The Ministry accepted that as a case in which there had been aggravation due to War service. I would not have accepted that case. On the other hand, you have to have a certain definite proof. You may have the case of a man who went through the War at somewhere round about 50 years of age, and since then, with the advance of years, has developed, say, arteriosclerosis. That man has a stroke and gets paralysis. Some people would say that that should be accepted as due to War service, and the man be pensioned accordingly. I was glad to find, in that particular case, that the Ministry did not regard it as one where the disease had been aggravated; they say the disease must absolutely be due to War injury or the result of War service and not due to the normal passage of time.
I would like Members of the House to remember in their criticisms that they are critcising with insufficient knowledge. They are laymen, who, as a rule, hear only one side of a case. They can take my assurance that all these cases are now examined most sympathetically by expert medical men, men who know their job, men with plenty of experience, men who have no say, in any shape or form, on the financial aspect of the case, and who are only anxious to do all they can to help the ex-service men. If we could get the idea to prevail throughout the country that the medical profession as a whole is a profession of honourable men who are anxious to do all they can for the ex-service men, I think it would create a better spirit and a better atmosphere and reduce suspicion among people. It is not uncommon at the present time to hear it said "But it is quite easy to get a doctor on one side to say one thing and another doctor on the other side to say exactly the opposite."
Hon. Members must bear in mind that in surgery and medicine, where we have not yet reached the confines of knowledge, one man may with perfect honesty interpret a symptom in a certain way and the next man may with equal honesty interpret that same system in a different way, and very often we do not know which man is right until there is an operation or a post-mortem examination. Yet both men have been perfectly honest in their opinons. When it is said here that cases have been referred to the Ministry accompanied by certificates from doctors, that does not necessarily mean that those medical men gave a false certificate. They gave a certificate according to the best of their ability on the symptoms they had observed, but when we also have the opinions of experts—experts on tuberculosis, or neurasthenia, or insanity, or wounds—it is only fair to regard the experience of such an expert, with all his experience, as of more value than that of the ordinary practitioner. I was always prepared to take the view of an expert, whether I agree with him or not, because I felt he had more knowledge.
The case submitted to-day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. F. O. Roberts) could, I
think, very easily be answered from a medical point of view, speaking quite cursorily, and some of the other cases mentioned to-day—apparently so sincere, apparently so pitiful from the point of view of the men—when looked at strictly from the medical point of view are not as genuine as they seem. The Minister is carrying on his responsible position with all the sympathy and human understanding which are so necessary, and I would like to asure him and the House that having made a personal inquiry into the medical department of the Ministry and the type of cases they examine, I am absolutely convinced that they are doing all in their power for the men, that, if anything, they err on the side of the men. They are more than careful, and I imagine that no single genuine case would ever be turned down by them on medical grounds. I hope the House will recognise that in the medical profession we have a body of honourable men, and, equally, that the officials of the Ministry are honourable men.

Mr. KELLY: While I am prepared to accept the statement of the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. V. Davies) that the main body of doctors are honourable men, I do suggest that mistakes may be made by them, and that mistakes are made even by the experts and specialists. I am not at all sure that we can rely, or must rely, in pension matters upon the certificates handed out by medical men. I know it is held that the layman ought not to put himself up against medical opiinion, but under the Workmen's Compensation Act one has had experience of cases where medical opinion has been accepted by the Court as sufficient to determine whether a man was capable of undertaking his work. A doctor may be able to say whether a man is ill or suffering from a particular disease, but I do not think it is the function of medical men to say whether a man is capable of doing his work, and, judging by many cases, their opinions certainly are not worth a great deal. I say that with every respect to the medical profession. Men who went out under all the promises which were made to them that they would be looked after as regards pensions and so forth have suffered from certain diseases after their return. Most of those men had been passed as healthy before they went out, and it is very difficult for
the layman to appreciate that those men, who underwent hardships and lived under conditions which were certain inhuman, such as having to sleep out in the open without covering, would have been in their present position had it not been for the hardships they had to undergo, and I think they might be given the benefit of the doubt in many more cases than at present.
One of the matters on which I wish to touch concerns the seven years' limit. I hope that limit will go, in view of the cases of which one hears, not only in one's own constituency, but all over the country, of men who for a time do not appear to have suffered from the effects of gas or any other experience during their War service, but do show the effects of it later on. I know about the exceptional cases qualification, but really it is hard for many of these men to pass through its mesh, and I urge upon the Minister that it would be far better that that seven years' limit should go and that each case should be judged upon its merits. I say the same with regard to the final award, having in mind one or two cases which are being now dealt with. Speaking as a layman, I feel that a mistake was made by whoever was responsible for making the final awards in those cases, and I say that those cases ought to be re-opened so that the men may return to pensions.
I am not going to deal with the cases quoted by the last speaker, but I do ask for special consideration for mental cases. Many of the men who were mentally fit when they were accepted for war service have tended to become unbalanced by reason of the changed conditions under which they had to live and the changed conditions they found when they came back into industrial life—the rush and the scramble there is, the anxiety to retain their jobs with so many people anxious to push them out; that all tends to unbalance them, and I urge upon the Minister that these men deserve the pensions which in many instances are denied to them.
The other point to which I wish to refer is education. I hope that the Minister of Pensions has departed from the notion which has been held by the Ministry for a long time with regard to the education of the children of the men who have lost their lives in the War—
that the position occupied by the serving man before the War should be the criterion taken for the type of education which his children should receive. There is not one Member of the Cabinet who can say whether a man who went to the War, having occupied a certain position in civil life prior to going, would be in the same position at the present time, or that his children would have to be satisfied with the type of education given in our elementary schools. If there has not been a departure from that notion, I hope there will be, in order that the children may be given the best possible education. I urge once again that the men who went out to the War have a right to the benefit of the doubt, and if they are unable to find work, we ought to pay them a pension, even though we may make mistakes on the generous side in granting those pensions.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: I wish to ask one or two questions in regard to the seven years' limit. I should be the last person to criticise the administration of the Pensions Department so far as it has been acting within the limits laid down, but it seems to me that in the cases which I have had to look into, in practically every case where there has been a disallowance under the medical rules, there was only one possible result and that was disallowance. I cannot help thinking that in regard to the seven years' limit there is a certain amount of criticism which can be raised in the case of the man who dies outside the seven years' limit. We can understand the case of a man making a claim for the first time after seven years, because you are going far beyond the limit under which a man can make a claim in regard to ordinary civil liabilities, and seven years is a long time to go. It seems to me that when you have given seven years you have covered practically every case that can possibly arise.
There are, however, cases that might arise. There is, for instance, the case of the man who, although he may have had some difficulty in getting along, has not lost his earning capacity and goes on thinking things will get better. In the case I am thinking of, at the end of 10 years the man found that the trouble which had been brewing the whole time had become more effective, and at that time even the cost of proper treatment was a burden on
his slender resources. And yet owing to this limit, that man appears to be shut out, although the disability in fact has been there the whole time. This man preferred to get along upon his own resources, and consequently he made no claim during that time. I think there is a great deal to be said for exercising a certain amount of discretion in a case of that kind, although one realises that you are making a greater extension than would be allowed in civil life.
The other case I wish to mention is one which gives rise to some considerable difficulty, but it is a case where the man suffers very much by reason of the seven years limit. The case is one where the man has been in receipt of a pension for disability up to the time of his death, and his death has occurred more than seven years from the incurring of the disability. Then it is found that the death is not wholly due to the trouble in respect of which he was receiving his pension. Under those circumstances it does seem to me to be very hard that the test should be whether death is wholly due to the disability, because that is a test which would not be applied in ordinary civil life. It is not even the test which is applied in such matters as workmen's compensation. I know there is discretion in certain cases where the pension is at least 40 per cent., but even that discretion is not exercised as generously as in an ordinary civil claim.
As I understand it, discretion is exercised in favour of a man's dependants only if it can be shown that the death has been materially hastened, but even then it is a matter of discretion. I hone I am not stating the case wrongly. The position, as I understand it, would not be whether death was wholly due to the disability or whether death was materially hastened by it. If one may take an analagous case of a man in receipt of workmen's compensation who had been in receipt of that compensation for some time and then died—if a claim were made by the widow for a lump sum in respect of that death, the County Court Judge would have to decide, not whether death had been materially hastened or wholly due to his disability, but whether death had been accelerated by his disability, and in that case the right of the widow to compensation would accrue. That is the
type of case with which the industrial classes of the community are familiar. They understand it and know their position. I can understand their thinking it hard in cases where there can be no doubt that there has been acceleration of death, and where the only question is whether it was a very large acceleration or whether death was accelerated in a small degree.
I cannot understand why such cases should be shut out, and why that should be the deciding factor when in ordinary civil life the only question would be, has death been accelerated? What has been adopted may be a proper way of limiting the discretion, but it seems to me that it would be far better if the earlier rule were adopted, and the real question from start to finish should be whether death has been accelerated, and not whether it is only due to the disability. What is the good of applying this rule in the case of a man who, when he was accepted for service, had some disability. The disability may have been of a minor character or it may have been of a greater character, but such as it was the man was taken for service, and those who take a man for service under those circumstances ought to take all the risks applicable to the man they have taken. Where the chain of circumstances is not clear, where from the moment that the War conditions make a man's original condition such that it disables him, and where from that moment onward until the moment of his death the chain of disability is complete, and death is in part due to the disability, it seems very hard that the question of a pension for the widow should depend upon a rule like that. If a man's death is in part due to his war service, operating, if you like, upon the man in the condition in which he was taken for service, he should be entitled to a pension, and his pension should not depend so much on the narrow question which certainly gives rise to unfairness when it does arise.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I listened with close attention to the speech made by the Minister of Pensions, and I think he is justified in saying that he has carried out the general wishes of this House in his administration of pensions. I also listened with interest to the ex-Minister of Pensions, who possesses a great knowledge on the pensions ques,
tion and I think he was perfectly fair in his criticisms of the present administration. Most of those who have spoken in this Debate agree that it is the more exceptional cases which need looking into, and not so much the system itself. All through the Debate the point has been stressed that the difficulty is to deal with exceptional cases for which you cannot make hard-and-fast rules. We have also heard complaints in regard to the decisions of the medical men associated with the administration of pensions, and I cannot help thinking that in some cases the Minister of Pensions is blamed for what is really the fault of the doctors. When doctors differ what are we to do, because we are really in the hands of the doctors?
I rose to draw the attention of the Minister to two cases which are very much connected with the medical side, and whether it is the fault of the doctors or not, I will leave the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to judge. There is a Pensions Appeal Tribunal from which one of my constituents recently came back very much aggrieved because the Tribunal had turned his case down. This man asked if he could be furnished with the names of the two doctors who acted on the Tribunal, and I applied to the Minister for their names. I was told that that was not the business of the Minister of Pensions, and he referred me to the Lord Chancellor. I communicated with the Lord Chancellor, who looked up the panel of doctors, and then he informed me that the matter was in the hands of the President of the Panel. Although as a rule it may be right not to give the names of the doctors, I think this aggrieved man was justified in asking for the names, because he wants to set their opinion against the opinion of his own local doctor. I think the ex-Minister of Pensions has suggested that there might be some appeal against decisions in cases like those which I have suggested.
That is one point in regard to which I have been wondering whether the treatment of the ex-service man could not be made a little more human, even by the Appeal Tribunal.
The other point that I wanted to mention is with regard to treatment allowances. Another constituent of mine—the officer who shot down the first Zeppelin
at Potter's Bar—whose disability is 100 per cent., and who has been quite fairly treated by the pension authorities, occasionally, like many other ex-service men, suffers from neurasthenia, and needs certain medical treatment at once. He has been for the last six or seven years in the hands of his local doctor, who, however, is not allowed to order at once the particular drug necessary in the case of such an attack, but has to get permission from the Pensions Committee. They usually in the end, after a month or two, accede to his request, but then very probably the bad nervous attack has passed off. I do not regard that as quite a human way of treating these unfortunate people, particularly when it would be quite easy to give the local doctor, who has had charge of the case, not for one month or two months, but for seven or eight years, authority to act in an emergency, and so save waste of time and unnecessary suffering on the part of the patient. It is not that the law is wrong, but I think that, on such points as this, the regulations might be more humanly administered. As has already been pointed out, it is not a question of any increase of expenditure, but a great deal of suffering might be avoided. I hope that, not only in this way, but in every other way possible, neurasthenic patients, especially, will be treated differently from ordinary people, that those looking after them will have more power to act at once in order to deal with their infirmity, and that we shall try in every kind of way to make the treatment more human and sympathetic, hard though the business of administration must be.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: There is a reference in the "Labour Speaker's Handbook" which I should be rather glad to see cleared up. It is stated that the seven years' limit for claiming pension in respect of a man who has died as a result of war disability was abolished by the late Government. As a matter of historical accuracy, I should like to know if that actually was the case. My own recollection is that the seven years' limit was abolished or modified by a Warrant, at the beginning of 1924 certainly, but before the Labour Government had taken office, and, simply as a matter of historical record, I should like to be quite clear on that point.
I do not think there is any difference of opinion in any quarter of the House in regard to the general principle on which the pension administration is carried out. With regard to the medical side, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, while a very extensive amount of work in connection with surgical and medical cases has been done in the Ministry's institutions, there is a very definite decline in the provision made, and in the necessity for it, and I should like to have some kind of idea as to the direction in which this is leading. The number of general surgical cases dealt with by the Ministry has gone down from 2,500 at the beginning of 1925 to something like half that number. In a period of just over four years, the total number of surgical cases treated has been 64,000, and of medical cases 60,000, while there have been 26,000 neurological cases. Outside the Ministry of Pensions, very few people realise the tremendous experience of neurological treatment that has been thus gained. It has been a source of information of immense value to medical science generally, and for treatment in civil life hereafter. Now, however, naturally enough, there are fewer cases, demanding fewer institutions and smaller staffs. The number of institutions has been reduced from 250, in 1921, to 28, the number of hospitals has been reduced from 75 to 20, the medical staff from 560 to 150, and the nursing staff from 1,300 to 360.
I should like to know what steps are going to be taken to see that all this wonderful equipment and experience is going to be made proper use of. The difficulty of a service of this kind is that, as it dwindles more and more, so the resources become more limited, and it becomes difficult to give the same proper and suitable treatment to those patients who remain, and to give the same kind of outlook in the service for those who are employed in it, while at the same time valuable equipment, institutions, and services are being lost which might otherwise be used for the general good of the community. I do not know how far the Minister can deal with this question, because it seems to me to verge on matters that are outside the limits of this Estimate, but certainly it
it a question which must appeal to us, and it is one which it is rather difficult for us to discuss at any other time of the year. The more we praise, as we do praise, the Minister and his predecessors for the wonderful organisation that has been built up in this country, the humane treatment that has been given, and the great results that have accrued, the more anxious we must necessarily be to see that those good results are not thrown away.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Dr. V. Davies) that undoubtedly the medical men who are doing the very difficult work of assessment are sans pear et sans reproche; but I have not the same absolute and unremitting faith which my hon. Friend apparently has in the results of the judgment of our profession. We are all of us liable to make mistakes, even when there may be two or three of us together, and my own experience is that, when cases are brought before the Minister in which there appears to have been any error of judgment, even in the higher Courts, we find ourselves satisfied with the action that is taken. Obviously, there must be protection for the public; there must be a limit. I believe that as much latitude as is possible is given in individual cases, and I suppose we must recognise that, while there are cases among our constituents with which we naturally, as Members of Parliament, feel intense sympathy, nevertheless it is a fact that the line must be drawn somewhere.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) seemed to suggest that, in the case of anyone in whom disease of any kind was aggravated to any extent by the War, that aggravation should be allowed to count, but it seems to me that that, surely, is not the case. Everyone runs the risk of life and death every day, even if it be only in crossing Parliament Square outside this House. We all have to run certain risks, as we have seen only too sadly in the case of colleagues in this House whom we have lost even within the last few weeks. We all run certain risks of infection and aggravation, and the fact that a man's disease was aggravated in some way by his War service, and that he is worse off on that account, does not necessarily mean a
corresponding liability on the State. Another kind of case which I have in mind, and which involves a great deal of sifting and reconsideration, is the case, say, of a farrier-sergeant who served in the War and who dies after seven years. His widow applies for a pension, and the question is whether his death from a tumour in his head was due to injuries received in the course of his duties during the War. It is shown that he was kicked on the head, but, obviously, a farrier expects to be kicked on the head, and on every other part of his body, from time to time. That is obviously an extreme case where a line must be drawn. We, as representing constituencies and constituents, obviously fight to the best of our ability for our individual constituents and make the most of their cases, and I am bound to say my own experience has been that the Minister has been fair to an extreme in meeting these cases, and that the system, although there may be exceptional cases of hardship, is fairer and more humane than any other of which I have yet heard.

Captain FAIRFAX: I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his interesting and lucid statement, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and hon. Members generally, on the non-party attitude they have adopted. It is always pleasant to find, on questions dealing with ex-service men, what a large proportion of Members there are who treat them in a non-party spirit. The course of the Debate has not been limited to the right hon. Gentleman's administration in the sense that all the speeches have tended to deal with exceptional cases not covering the whole of the administration. That shows that the general character of my right hon. Friend's administration has met with approval in all quarters of the House. It is only where we come to exceptional cases that variances of opinion are to be found. As might be expected in a Debate of a non-party character, those variances of opinion do not run on party lines. Speaking as a layman, I find myself at variance with the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies), who is a member of the medical profession. I rather join issue with the line he took in inviting the House to consider that the value of the medical opinion of the ex
perts of the Ministry was necessarily and invariably greater than that of general practitioners.
There are eases where a man's own general practitioner has known the state of his health for a long term of years and is in a position to diagnose the case better than the expert who only sees him later on. The feeling of the layman is rather against the extreme tendency to rely on that opinion. Many people have the feeling that, if they were to go up and down Harley Street and Wimpole Street asking for the diagnosis of any complaint, they would get a different diagnosis at almost every door they went to, whereas if they were to rely on the common sense of the general practitioners in provincial towns they might, in many respects, get a sound diagnosis and a more uniform form of treatment. For that reason, the specialist and the expert have, perhaps, become too predominant in the consideration of the Ministry. The hon. Member for Royton also said something about the even-handed administration of justice. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend to temper justice not only with equity but with human sympathy and generosity, erring even on the side of excess. If he comes back in the next Parliament, I hope he will find that the economies he has been able to make by a strict administration of the law will enable him to go further in the generous treatment of these border line cases.

Mr. W. BENNETT: The record of our country in connection with the War and the treatment of ex-service men is certainly a great deal better than on any previous occasion in our history. It is so admirable a record that it is a pity there should be any stain upon it whatever, but it is impossible to be a Member of this House even for so short a period as three months without knowing that there is considerable suspicion and doubt amongst a large number of ex-service men as to their treatment. There are certain diseases which lie dormant for a very long time and break out very much later on. I have cases in my mind of men who have never put in any claims, but I am certain before very many years have passed, after the seven years' limit, the time will come when things they have contracted during the War will emerge. It seems to me it would be far better
that we should make three mistakes, or even more, than that one ex-service man should be in a state of doubt and suspicion about his treatment.
We on this side of the House believe that misfortune alone should be a sufficient claim for generous treatment by the country for any man, whether an ex-service man or not, but even if that were the case and it were possible for people to get it, men who have served in the War ought to come on this and no other fund and, at all events, if possible, there should never be any taint of pauperism or public relief in any assistance that is necessary. I cannot for the life of me see why an enlargement of this fund, even through error, should be a misfortune, because there should be a saving on some other fund, in any case, Perhaps they are more generously treated under this fund than under the Poor Law, but the mere fact that a man is an ex-service man should foe a sufficient claim for assistance out of this fund. The seven years' limit should be abolished, and the administration should be so elastic that we in this House ought not in the future to be badgered weekly with complaints of ex-service men who believe they have not had proper treatment.

Major TRYON: I should like to extend my thanks to the House, and to the Members of all parties, for the way in which this national question has been treated, even on the eve of a General Election, because it would be a very bad thing for the country and for ex-service men if it were to become merely a matter of party politics. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. F. O. Roberts), amongst others, raised the case of Frank Smith. He said there was medical evidence on the side of the man, and he suggested that against that there was our medical opinion. This is not one of those cases where you can decide lightly and give the benefit of the doubt in the absence of any definite information. The difficulty is that there is exceedingly definite evidence with reference to the man's injuries at the time they occurred, and that evidence cannot be set aside by medical evidence obtained eight or ten years later by men who have not seen and do not know the medical evidence in possession of the Ministry.
It is a case, naturally, to which everyone would give sympathy, because the
man was undoubtedly wounded, but there is a fact that the right hon. Gentleman did not give to the House. All through it has been the desire of the ex-service men that in the final resort a tribunal should give the final decision. Those who have been speaking about the seven years' limit are themselves really advocating tribunals. This House has decided that the final decision in those cases should rest in the hands of an independent tribunal, whose decision is final and binding on the Ministry. It is not fair to blame the Minister for decisions which have been taken out of his hands by the House and given to another body. The right hon. Gentleman did not, I am sure through inadvertence, mention the fact that this question had been decided by the tribunal and, therefore, it is not in my power to make any financial payment to the man.
Going on from that, the right hon. Gentleman alluded to British Legion settlements. That is an object with which I am very much in sympathy. I had very much pleasure in interesting myself in them. I wish them all success and we are working with them. He alluded to the absence of the human touch.

Mr. F. O. ROBERTS: I did not intend to make any suggestion that there was an absence of it. I only urged its continuance.

Major TRYON: I took down the word "absence." I am glad if it was not used: of course, these phrases are extremely misleading. Throughout the last five or six years the decline has been absolutely steady and unvarying under successive Governments, and, therefore, I claim no superiority over the right hon. Gentleman. All I say is that the advent of the Labour Government, which came into office with the intention of altering almost everything in connection with war pensions, was followed by the courageous decision of that Government to maintain the principles of the Ministry to the end of its period of office. I believe that was an entirely right decision. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to avoid the question of the seven years' limit by saying that, after all, in his day there were not very many cases. I have definite evidence of a number of cases that were rejected on account of the seven years' limit without any suggestion of further
inquiry by the Labour Government. There is the case of Mr. Rutherford who received no award for disability. "As seven years have elapsed since his discharge no claim can now be entertained." That was on 24th June, 1924. Therefore I am right in my contention that the Labour Government came into office having definitely determined to remove the seven years' limit, and, with fuller knowledge of the facts, they not only rightly maintained it but enforced it in individual cases.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) raised the ease of Mrs. Stafford. The difficulty he had in that case is that we are guided by our medical advisers, who are definitely of opinion that the illness of 1916 was the origin of his tuberculosis; and Mr. Stafford's own opinion as to the date of the onset was the same. But, although the full claim has not gone through, the widow is getting a pension at a lower rate, which is the full rate to which she is entitled under the Royal Warrant. With reference to the other case, that of Mrs. Physick, the position is this. We did not take 10d. off the 10 shillings as he suggests. The widow is getting the five shillings flat rate pension, and the need pension has to be calculated, on the scheme which was endorsed and improved by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, according to her income. The old age pension has to be taken into account, and the amount she is getting now, something over nine shillings is, as a matter of fact, in substitution for the two or three shillings the son was actually getting before the War. Moreover, when it is suggested that the son would get even more if he had lived, I am bound in fairness to the Ministry to point out that there is another son who is alive but is contributing nothing. That is our chief difficulty.
7.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker), whom I thank for the non-party way in which he approached the subject, was under some misapprehension as to a point that was also raised by the hon. Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord). The position is this: On 14th January, 1924, a new warrant was drawn up. We discussed it very fully. It was an enormous concession to ex-service men. It gave a right to the widow of any pensioner to apply, without time limit, for
full pension with right of appeal; and it also gave an option to the Ministry of paying at a somewhat lower rate. Surely from the other side of the House this principle can hardly be attacked, because they adopted it and extended it. It was a great concession welcomed by the British Legion and by ex-service men. I should like to thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser). I am really grateful to him for the kind things he said, and I appreciate his courage in putting the other side of the case with reference to the seven years' limit. Members of this House have sometimes spoken to-day as if there were a seven years' limit absolutely barring all claims. That was the position, but we have altered it. Under the present Government, arrangements have been brought in so that, where there is evidence, cases can go through. One Member spoke of hundreds of thousands of cases being barred by the seven years' limit and many references, naturally friendly, have been made to the British Legion and its activities on this matter. I believe there are 2,000 branches of the Legion, and, for all I know, there may be 2,000 resolutions on the seven years' limit, but when we come to actual facts all I know is that the British Legion have submitted to the headquarters of the Ministry in the six months ending 16th March, 1929, only 37 cases. I do not know how many resolutions. Someone naturally asks how many we have granted. We have not necessarily granted all the cases from the British Legion but we have granted, to applicants as a whole in the same period, 116 cases, so that at the Ministry of Pensions we are granting far more cases than the British Legion, are submitting. We are, therefore, entitled to speak with some knowledge of the seven years' limit. It is not an absolute bar.
My impression of the whole of this Debate from first to last, apart from the very kind references which have been made to the Ministry, has been that it is concerned with the individual case. Members have raised some hard case that has not been dealt with, but in the whole Debate there has been no proposal whatever for any change in the essential foundations of our pensions
system. I greatly appreciate the references to the medical service of the Ministry made by the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies. I know how much I admire and respect their work myself, and I resent it when attacks are made—not in this House—against the doctors of the Ministry of Pensions. I saw a statement the other day making the very unkind suggestion that these men know very little of what the men went through at the front. Our difficulty is generally not with the men who went to the front. There are a million men who enlisted, but were unfit to go to the front. An enormous proportion of our medical men have been in the Army and have served overseas. Of our whole staff, 96 per cent. are ex-service men. Very often, of all the men dealing with a case, of the men concerned with the examination, consideration and decision of a case, the only man who has not been at the front is the man applying for the money of the State on the ground that he has been disabled by the War. Very often the man who is applying has not been overseas and the man who is examining him has. It is utterly wrong, therefore, to criticise our doctors for want of knowledge of what went on at the front. I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) for the very interesting points which he developed. There are a certain number of subjects on which the House is handicapped because they concern a number of Departments. That applies to the very interesting points which he raised, and also to the fighting services. There have been some other references to individual cases. I can assure hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate that, if they will write to me about the cases giving me more information, I shall look into them.

Sir B. PETO: What will be the rate of interest on pensioners' savings?

Major TRYON: Naturally, it is not possible to give that in the present stage of the scheme.

Sir B. PETO: Would it be generous?

Major TRYON: It is quite obvious that the scheme has not yet reached that point.

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: Do these questions each receive the personal attention of the Minister?

Major TRYON: If the hon. Member means, do I personally go into all the cases of 1,500,000 people, the answer is that I do not. But I have gone most closely into la large number of individual cases, partly because it is a useful test of the system, and also because I want to do the best I can for the men themselves. A Minister who did nothing else but consider individual cases would not be doing his work properly.

Mr. LONGBOTTOM: I put that question because of the suggestion which has been made that the Minister went into every individual case.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Second to Sixty-third Resolutions agreed to.

It being Half past Seven of the Clock and there being Private Business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, Under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BILLS.

STANDING ORDERS FOR THE SUSPENSION OF PRIVATE BILLS OR BILLS TO CONFIRM ANY PROVISIONAL ORDER OR CERTIFICATE.

Ordered,
That the promoters of every Private Bill or Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Certificate which shall have originated in this House or been brought from the House of Lords in the present Session of Parliament shall have leave to suspend any further proceeding thereon in order to proceed with the same, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be given in the Committee and Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees thereon due up to that period be paid.

Ordered,
That not later than five o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament, every such Bill which has originated in this House shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed in the case of a Private Bill by the agent, and in the case of a Provisional Order Bill by an officer of the Department by which the Orders to be confirmed by such Bill were made, stating
that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill with respect to which proceedings have been so suspended at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in the present Session; and, where any sum of money has been deposited, that such deposit has not been withdrawn, together with a certificate of that fact from the proper officer of the Court in which such money is deposited; and, as soon as conveniently may be in the next Session of Parliament, every such Bill shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Committee and Private Bill Office upon the Table of the House.

Ordered,
That every Bill so laid upon the Table shall be deemed to have been read the First time; and shall be read a Second time if such Bill shall have been read a Second tinier previously to its being suspended; and, if such Bill shall have been reported by any Committee in the present Session, the Committee stage shall be dispensed with and the Bill ordered to lie upon the Table, or to be read the Third time, as the case may be.

Ordered,
That in case any Bill brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, upon which the proceedings shall have been suspended in this House, shall be brought from the House of Lords in the next Session of Parliament, a declaration signed as aforesaid stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, and, where any sum of money has been deposited, that such deposit has not been withdrawn, together with a certificate of that fact from the proper officer, shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office before the First Heading of such Bill: and, provided that such deposit has been duly made, such Bill shall be read the First time and be further proceeded with in the same manner as Bills introduced into this House during the present Session, with this modification that if any such Bill shall have been amended in this House in the present Session, such Amendments shall be deemed to have been made in Committee and the Bill, as amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table or, if the Bill shall have been ordered to be read the Third time in the present Session, or to be read the Third time.

Ordered,
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to any such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session, and that no further fees be charged in respect of such stages.

Ordered,
That all Petitions presented in the present Session against any such Bill which
stood referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the next Session of Parliament; and that all notices and grounds of objection to the right of Petitioners to be heard within the time prescribed by the Rules of the Referees relating to such notices shall be held applicable in the next Session of Parliament.

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on such Bills unless their petition shall have been presented within the time limited in the present Session.

Ordered,
That, in case the time limited for presenting petitions against any such Bill shall not have expired at the close of the present Session, petitioners may be heard before the Committee on such Bill, provided their petition be presented previous to or not later than seven clear days after the next meeting of Parliament."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That all Instructions to Committees on Private Bills in the present Session, which shall be suspended previously to their being reported by any Committee, be Instructions to the Committee on the same Bills in the next Session."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. James Hope): I beg to move, in line 58, at the end, to insert the words,
Any Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Private Bill or Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Certificate, originating in the House of Lords, upon which the proceedings shall have been suspended in that House, shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of such Bill, if the same shall be brought from the House of Lords in the next Session of Parliament, and any notices published and served, and any deposits made in respect of such Bill for the present Session shall be held to have been published, served, and made, respectively, for the Bill so brought from the House of Lords in the next Session of Parliament.
I have already explained the Motion to the House, and I now wish to insert the words of the Amendment. The point is that it was thought by the authorities in another place that Bills which had started there and had not got here, would not be covered by the Resolution as first framed. Therefore, for greater caution, it was thought well to add to the Motion the words which I now move.

Amendment agreed to.

Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Ordered,
That all Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Public Bill introduced, or intended to be introduced, during the present Session shall be held applicable to any Bill for the same objects introduced in the next Session, and where the Examiner has already reported upon the compliance with the Standing Orders in respect of any such Bill he shall only report in the next Session whether any further Standing Orders are applicable.

Ordered,
That the said Orders be Standing Orders of the House."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

REPORT [7TH MAY].

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Consideration of Resolutions.

Sixty-fourth to Eighty-fifth Resolutions, inclusive, agreed to.

Eighty-sixth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. BATEY: On this Vote I desire to raise a question which affects a large number of men. It is the case of the Dawdon Colliery in the county of Durham belonging to Lord Londonderry, which employs over 2,000 men. For the last 10 weeks Lord Londonderry has had these men locked out, and we are anxious that something should be done to get him to withdraw the notices he has served so that work may be started again. An inspired statement by Lord Londonderry appears in the Press this morning, in which he says that the situation at this colliery is in the hands of the Communists. I am sorry he has made that statement, because it is far from the truth. The Communists have not captured the situation, nor are they in control. Only two or three days ago the miners' lodge issued a statement repudiating the Communists and all their activities, and made it perfectly clear that they had no connection whatever with the dispute. It is no use Lord Londonderry attempting to mislead public opinion into thinking that this dispute
is owing to Communist activity. This dispute arises because our people object to three things which Lord Londonderry is seeking. In the first place, he wants a local reduction in wages; in the second place, an alteration in an agreement for what we call cutting the bottom coal, and, also, an alteration in an agreement for what we call pitches and rules.
The men have a strong objection to Lord Londonderry using his power to break agreements which have been in existence for several years. They object that with an iron hand and at will he should smash these agreements and say how they shall be altered. That is not the way in which agreements are altered in the county of Durham. We have a different method altogether. We have never submitted to a colliery owner simply saying that an agreement must be altered and altered in the way which he suggests. Lord Londonderry ought to have known the Durham miners better than try and ride the high horse over them like this. That is not the way to get our people to alter agreements. Naturally they have a strong objection to local reductions in wages. I received this morning a statement from the miners' secretary at the lodge, and I call the attention of the Secretary for Mines to the fact that the opinion of the miners' secretary represents the opinion of the local miners' leaders. He says:
We believe that there is not the slightest need for these reductions, and the men are convinced that they are simply being robbed of their local agreements which have taken 12 to 20 years to build up. We had a large local reduction in wages on 3rd July, 1927, which meant over 3s. per day on the colliery average. Now another deep cut is wanted.
That is the reason the men are objecting to any settlement of this dispute. They contend that these two local agreements, which have taken so long to build up, should not be smashed simply because Lord Londonderry has come to the decision that they ought to be smashed; and the fact that they suffered a local reduction in wages of over 3s. per ton in 1927 makes them feel that they are not called upon to suffer another local reduction now. Efforts have been made to settle the dispute and one is glad for everything that has been done in this direction, but so far the rank and file of the miners have felt so strongly against the action of Lord Londonderry in pressing
for these reductions that in the two or three ballots which have been taken they have by a large majority balloted against any acceptance of any of the terms which have been suggested. Unless there is a settlement this dispute can end in only one way. Lord Londonderry can sit down quietly and he will not starve; but he knows that the time will come when he will starve these 2,000 men and their wives and children into submission. If that is his policy it is not a noble or a manly policy. He knows that he will not starve himself; he can quietly wait until he starves these thousands of men into submission.
I want the Secretary for Mines to do everything he can to get a settlement of this dispute. The men are not striking; they are locked out. One of the things about which they feel keenly is this. They are asked to accept reductions and to break these agreements, which means further reductions, and they are not clear in their own minds that the colliery is not paying. No evidence has been put before them that the colliery is not paying or that Lord Londonderry is losing money. He has said that all he is asking for is a reduction of £200 per week. That may not be much to Lord Londonderry, but it is an enormous amount to our people, and before he presses for these reductions he should at least produce some evidence that the colliery is not paying and that it is losing money. The first intimation the men had that Lord Londonderry wanted reductions in wages was in the beginning of this year, in January. Some months have rolled away since then and we are now told that the coal industry is looking up, that the prospects are much brighter. The President of the Board of Trade, speaking in the House on Monday, painted a very rosy picture of the coal industry and led the public to believe that it was prosperous and happy. He said:
Export prices hare tended quite definitely to harden, and in January and February the whole industry, for the first time for a considerable period, was working at a profit, of 7d. per ton in January and 9d. in February."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1929; col. 1971, Vol. 227.]
If things are really getting better, if prices are hardening, if the Government de-rating relief scheme means anything—in some of our county divisions hon. Members opposite are preaching that it
means an immense deal to the coal industry—then there is no need for Lord Londonderry to press for these local reductions in wages or attempt to smash these local agreements which the men value so much. If they are lost it is not very easy to get them back again. If there was, in fact, any need for Lord Londonderry to ask for these local reductions at the beginning of the year there can be no need for him to do so to-day, otherwise everything we have been told in regard to the prospects of the coal industry goes for nothing.
I want the Secretary of Mines to hold an inquiry or send one of his officials to see if something can be done. I want him to use his influence with Lord Londonderry to withdraw these notices. Lord Londonderry is a prominent member of the Government, and in the county of Durham we shall judge the Government by the actions of one of its prominent members. At a time like this, the Conservative party might bring a little pressure or influence to bear on Lord Londonderry to withdraw these notices and allow our people to get back to work. Any alterations that may have to be made can be made when the men are working. As it is, Lord Londonderry is now using the iron hand in order to enforce these alterations. We believe that the coalowners have been put in this position by the action of the Government in 1926. Even Lord Londonderry would not have taken action like this before 1926. None of our coalowners would have dreamt of using the mailed fist in this way before 1926. In a month's time the position will be altogether different; we shall be in the saddle, and it will be for us to bring them to their senses if they have not learned wisdom before then. I urge the Secretary for Mines to use any influence he has with Lord Londonderry to withdraw these notices. If not, then I urge him to use all the powers which his Department has to effect a settlement and not allow matters to drift.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. OLIVER STANLEY: The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has contradicted one part of the statement issued by Lord Londonderry, but he did not, I think, deal with the other part of the statement, which went on to say that an agreement had been reached with the responsible officials of the miners in that colliery, and that the acceptance of the
terms offered had been urged on the miners, but that that advice had been turned down by the miners on a ballot. The statement also said that the refusal of the terms recommended by the miners' own officials was due to Communist influence in the district. Can the hon. Member tell the House whether that is a fact or not, and whether it is the case that the acceptance of these terms was advised by the miners' own officials?

Mr. BATEY: I did not deal with the other part of the statement in which Lord Londonderry said that there was no dispute between him and the local miners' leaders or the comity miners' leaders, and in which he referred to the fact that he had met both the county and the local leaders, and that terms had been suggested which had been submitted to the men and refused. It is perfectly true that the local leaders met Lord Londonderry and discussed the matter, and that the terms were submitted to the men and that the men, by a big majority, refused the terms.

Mr. STANLEY: Refused their leaders' advice?

Mr. BATEY: Yes, and it is nothing new to some of us who have had years of experience in trade union leadership to find that advice is turned down. But I do not think that Lord Londonderry was wise, when the men by ballot refused to accept these terms, to say that their decision was due to Communist activity. In my opinion it was due to the deep-seated hatred of the men to further local reductions in wages, and against the smashing of agreements which it has taken so long to build up.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has been reminding me of a good many things, and has raised the question of my powers with regard to district disputes. As far as the powers of the Mines Department are concerned, I would remind him that this is a question of contract between employer and employed, and that I have no power to intervene, unless invited to do so by both parties to the dispute. That is the position since 1926. May I also remind the hon. Member that, during the stoppage in 1926, the Prime Minister repeatedly offered to set up a national
wages tribunal which would go into the question of whether local district agreements were proper, and whether they were being carried out? Those offers were refused. The last offer was refused by the Secretary of the Miners' Federation as late as 10th November, 1926, and the hon. Member cannot blame this Government for the fact that there is no power on the part of the Government to interfere in such a dispute. I wish to cavil at the terms which the hon. Member has been using towards the management of the mine, in speaking of "the iron hand," and of these terms being forced on the miners. Some weeks—indeed I think months—before the notices were to expire, the management, so I am informed, made repeated efforts to get the men and their leaders to consult with them on the new terms. Though I have no power in the matter, I take a deep interest in everything connected with the mining industry, and I have kept myself closely in touch with what has been going on at this colliery. It is not disputed, even by the local leaders, that the management endeavoured to get a discussion on the new terms before the notices expired but it was not until the notices had expired that any real discussion took place.
There have been various discussions since that time, but when the hon. Member speaks of this "drastic cut," and of the very harsh treatment of the miners by the management, I would remind him that the rates that were being paid at that colliery before the notices expired were in some of the seams as much as 78 per cent. above the county average. They varied from 25 per cent. to 78 per cent. above the county average. The hon. Member can hardly refer to this is a lockout. It is merely a question of a certain rate of wages being offered, and not being accepted by the men, and therefore work is not going on. But the rates in existence for hewers in that pit before the stoppage were as I have indicated. Surely it was not such very harsh treatment, that the management, in the times through which we have been passing, should seek to obtain some settlement on a lower basis. The hon. Member quoted the statement that in some cases there would be a reduction of 3s. per shift. I also have those figures from the men's point of view, but in some of the seams
even a reduction of 3s. per shift would still, on their own showing, leave them over 40 per cent. above the county average. He can hardly describe that as a starvation wage. In any case I am not arguing that point one way or the other. All I wish to say is that after the first ballot, the management and the men's representatives met and discussed terms, and some of the terms to which the men's representatives objected were adjusted and they agreed to those adjustments and advised the men to accept the terms. As the hon. Member has admitted, the men refused to accept their leaders' advice. I am surprised that the hon. Member—the leaders of his organisation having given good advice as it must have been—should now ask the owners to go behind that advice and give way to terms which even the men's leaders considered would be unfair.

Mr. BATEY: I do not say that. What I feel is that as they made an effort for settlement, and as that effort failed, I think they ought to make another effort.

Commodore KING: I think the hon. Member's friends in that part of the world will assure him that the management have only been too willing to meet the men, and their leaders, as has been shown by the various adjustments which have been made. At present it is simply a case of the men having refused to accept the advice of their own leaders. It is not a quarrel between them and the management. The hon. Member knows more about the trade union rules in that part of the country than I do, but I understand that the miners' leaders themselves have the power to order the men to go back if there is not a two-thirds majority against the owners' terms, and there is not a two-thirds majority in this case. If the hon. Member wants a settlement, instead of seeking to go behind the advice which his executive has given, I suggest that the way to end this stoppage—which we would all like to see ended—is to enforce that advice by ordering the men to go back to work, because they have not a sufficient majority against the terms offered. It is a disastrous thing for the men themselves, and for the whole industry, that this stoppage should occur after a time of depression, just at a time when that particular class of coal is in such demand that the demand can hardly be met, and that
production should be stopped, at this juncture, because the men down there are so undisciplined—I can only presume that—that they will not accept the advice of their own leaders. I have no power whatever, but I hope that the hon. Member, when his time of freedom comes in a few days, will go down there and add his good advice to the advice already given to the men by their leaders.

Mr. RITSON: I wish to protest against the figures which have been given by the Secretary for Mines in regard to this colliery. The figures which we have here from the Durham lodges, as far back as 5th January, show that the average then was 11s. 4.1d. and down to 9s. 6d. and 10s. 8d. on 10th January. I do not know where the hon. and gallant Member has got the figures which he has given us to-day. We have always been guided by the colliery average in these matters, and not by the district average, and it would be interesting also to know what is the output per man in the cases for which he has given us this high rate of wages. What we are up against is this. We are trying to get the Secretary for Mines to use the same influence with Lord Londonderry as he would use if any of our people were taking drastic action. This is a question of a lock-out. It is not a question of our people giving notice. Had our people given notice we would have had the Department giving all their support to trying to settle the matter. In regard to Lord Londonderry the reason why our executive in Durham, after having taken a ballot, gave certain advice was that they knew the power of Lord Londonderry, and his action in the past, and that the Government to-day, as in 1926, was behind him. They naturally said to the men to try to make the best of a bad job.
They knew that Lord Londonderry had new collieries, virgin seams opening out next door to this, and that he could get all the trade he wanted and keep the men starving for weeks, and therefore the Executive said: "While we cannot agree with these heavy reductions, we would, against our better judgment, advise our people, for the moment, to give way." But that does not mean that our agents agree with the huge reductions for which Lord Londonderry is asking, particularly when we have the political organ-grinder standing at that
Box, every now and again, and telling us that the coal trade is looking up and that everything in the garden is lovely. I wish he could attend the colliery offices with some of us when we are speaking against reductions of wages. There is not a manager in the coalfields who will not tell you that he is losing money right and left, and yet we have speeches being made such as we had from the President of the Board of Trade the other day. If anybody can pay wages, it ought to be Lord Londonderry with his collieries right on the seaboard and with virgin seams two and three feet higher than those of any other colliery owner in the country. He has this outlet and he has his own ships, and we know the possibilities of the collieries in that area.

Commodore KING: But may I ask the hon. Member whether he really contends that an average of 35 per cent. above the county average is a starvation wage?

Mr. RITSON: I say that even 35 per cent. above the county average may be a starvation wage. If the hon. and gallant Member has a philosophy which tells him that a county average is a spiritual standard, I do not know where he has got it. How much is the county average?

Commodore KING: It is 7s. 11d., including the district percentage per shift.

Mr. RITSON: We will take this holy standard of 7s. 11d. on an average of four days a week—which is all the men have been working for some time past—and apply it to a man with a family. Does he consider that that is not a starvation wage? Then we are going to have a heavy reduction. The reduction of 1927 is not the only local reduction that we have had since the national reduction. We are continually having these reductions which are bringing our people down to a minimum, in spite of the optimism of the President of the Board of Trade and we are still £7,000,000 in debt in the county of Durham. We object to reductions, particularly when they are combined with agreements by which we can never get back again what we lose. While we are as anxious as anyone to get out of a difficulty like this, we object to Lord
Londonderry hiding behind the Communists as he is doing. There is such a thing as a legal side, and there are legal powers, I know, but the Secretary for Mines has also a power of moral suasion which is not limited, and in his own interests and in those of his party it is his duty to see the noble Marquess and get him to come to reason on this question. While we are being told that our only hope lies in the party now in office, we find this action being taken by the noble Marquess in dragooning our people below a level at which they can live.
It would be very interesting to know what is the output per man in the particular district quoted as receiving high wages, and if we had those figures, I think the general public would find that alongside the so called high wages was a very heavy output per man per shift. We ask the Department to use every influence it can at a time like this, when we are feeling the strain. Every attempt that we make to increase our output per man is followed by an attempt to reduce our wages in proportion. That has always been the way in Durham. In 1926, with the Government behind them, the owners began this competitive system again, and naturally we make this protest, believing that that system ought to be dead and done away with. We know the Minister is anxious to get the men back to work, as we are, but we do protest against Lord Londonderry hiding behind what he calls the Communist influence in a case of this kind. Our people have voted solidly against going back to work, and we ask that the Minister will take the same keen interest in seeing Lord Londonderry, with a view to bringing the parties together again and having arbitration, if you will, as he would have done had our people kicked over the traces, because on this occasion, believe me, it is a lock-out, not a strike, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests.

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: As the hon. and gallant Member the Secretary for Mines will hear, I have left my voice behind me in Durham. I had some hand in this agreement that Lord Londonderry is trying to break. I admit it is a fair agreement, but may I remind the Minister that if the miners in the other collieries in Durham who get nothing above the average were coming out on strike, it
would be a different question. Here Lord Londonderry comes along and says to our men, "You are getting more than other people are getting," but he forgets the fact, as has been pointed out already, that he is better able to pay than practically any other owner in the whole of the country. I think that ought always to be kept in mind. The Minister said that these men were getting 35 per cent. above the county rate. That would give them a weekly wage of something like £2 12s. for five days a week. Does the Minister consider that that wage is too high for a man to keep himself, his wife, and four or five children? I can tell him that plenty of these people are not getting food enough to do the work they are asked to do by the owners of the collieries.
I have in my possession information in regard to another colliery in the same county, which shows that a man worked four weeks and that his average earnings during that time came to 1s. 6d. a day. Put that against what Lord Londonderry is paying over, and that he can afford to pay. Are we all to come down to the very low level of the county rate or less? It has always been acknowledged in the county that where conditions were good men could earn more than the county rate. There are people in some of the other seams who are not making anything like the money which the Minister has mentioned, who would come under this agreement as well as the other people, and Lord Londonderry cannot have it all his own way. Surely, when a colliery is paying and an owner can afford to pay the men for producing the material that he disposes of, wages should have some claim on the profits of the owner; and if Lord Londonderry is in the happy position, as against his competitors in the county, to do what he can, surely he should be looked to to pay a bigger wage than is paid by the collieries that are not paying. I hope the Minister will take some action in this matter. He has told, us what the miners' leaders have tried to do, but can he not use his good influence with Lord Londonderry at once to withdraw these notices, and then try to settle the whole dispute? If there is a road to a settlement there, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman can persuade the owners to do that, I feel sure that any
privation and starvation of the women and children of Durham will soon end and that they will have a peaceful settlement.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Remaining Resolutions agreed to.

REPORT [6TH MAY].

Resolution reported;

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1929.

CLASS VI.

"That a sum, not exceeding £110,551, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, and Subordinate Departments, including certain Services arising out of the War."

Resolution agreed to.

REPORT [1ST MAY].

Resolution reported;

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1929.

CLASS V.

"That a sum, not exceeding £14,228,664, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the-Ministry of Health, including Grants and other expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in connection with Public Health Services, including a Grant-in-Aid, Grants-in-Aid in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain Expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and certain Special Services."

Resolution agreed to.

REPORT [30TH APRIL].

Resolution reported;

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1929.

CLASS II.

"That a sum, not exceeding £97,994, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the-Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."

Resolution agreed to.

REPORT [2ND MAY].

Resolution reported;

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1929.

CLASS VI.

"That a sum, not exceeding £1,203,863, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Expenses under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, a Grant under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, Loans to Co-operative Marketing Societies, Grants for Agricultural Education and Research, Grants for Eradication of Tuberculosis in Cattle, Grants for Land Drainage, Grants-in-Aid of the Small Holdings Account, and certain other Grants-in-Aid; and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

REPORT [7TH MAY].

Resolution reported;
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, the sum of £251,939,597 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Churchill and Mr. A. M. Samuel.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL,

"to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirty, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 118.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL RATES BILL.

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity
(Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Dulverton, in the county of Somerset, which was presented on the 18th day of April, 1929, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Crediton, St. Thomas, and Tiverton, in the county of Devon, which was presented on the 18th day of April, 1929, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Wiveliscombe and the rural district of Wellington, in the county of Somerset, which was presented on the 18th day of April, 1929, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Withernsea and part of the rural district of Patrington, in the East Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 18th day of April, 1929, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the acquisition and use by the Mayor, Aldermen, and Councillors of the Metropolitan borough of Stepney of lands for the extension of the generating station at Limehouse, which was presented on the 18th day of April, 1929, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Rainford, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 15th day of April, 1929, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity
(Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Bollington and part of the rural district of Macclesfield, in the county of Chester, and for other purposes, which was presented on the 18th day of April, 1929, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Chapel-en-le-Frith and Bakewell, in the county of Derby, which was presented on the 25th day of April, 1929, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parishes of Gretna and Dornock, in the county of Dumfries, which was presented on the 25th day of April, 1929, be approved."—[Colonel Ashley.]

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Penny.]

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes before Nine o'Clock.